On 02.04.2010, at 10:12, MacArthur, Ian (SELEX GALILEO, UK) wrote: > >> those of you who read the commit logs will have been blasted >> with huge commits in the FLTK 3.0 branch. Yes, I am actively >> developing this again, and guess what, so far I believe I am >> pretty successful. > > Yes - I had noticed. > I even wondered if I should grab a snapshot to try it, but decided to > wait until the churn of check-ins stopped...
Ah, see, the current branch does not have "matt" attached in the SVN anymore. Please feel free to hack away (and I saw you already did). > I think you missed revising some copyright dates though! Yes, most definitely ;-) >> Overhead: FLTK1 and 2 code wil have one additional >> indirection per call. Every widget has a sister widget which >> is just one pointer in size. I am sure this is bearable for >> most systems. > > Is it feasible that the compiler can resolve that indirection at compile > time in some cases? I'm wondering if this additional indirection my be > optimised away in some cases (so that it would actually be no worse at > all...) though this seems unlikely for any reasonably complicated bit of > code... That would be cool! But who knows, except for the gcc core developer group... . _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
