DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
[PATCH] Experimental performance improvements.
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-12-14 23:02 -------
The property constants file that your version will generate defines three
constants as follows:
int COMPOUND_SHIFT = 9;
int PROPERTY_MASK = (1 << COMPOUND_SHIFT)-1;
int COMPOUND_MASK = ~PROPERTY_MASK;
We see them at work later in the Constants file w.r.t. compound properties:
int C_BLOCK_PROGRESSION_DIRECTION = 1 << COMPOUND_SHIFT;
int C_CONDITIONALITY = 2 << COMPOUND_SHIFT;
int C_INLINE_PROGRESSION_DIRECTION = 3 << COMPOUND_SHIFT;
int C_LENGTH = 4 << COMPOUND_SHIFT;
int C_MAXIMUM = 5 << COMPOUND_SHIFT;
int C_MINIMUM = 6 << COMPOUND_SHIFT;
If I recall my C programming days correctly, I believe you're doing a bitwise
shift 9 digits to the left for these constants--what's the benefit of shifting
these compound constant values--can you point me to a place in your patch where
you take advantage of this shifting (e.g., masking, quick calculations of
anything, etc.)? I will add comments accordingly.