DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25480>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25480 [PATCH] Experimental performance improvements. ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-12-14 23:02 ------- Finn, The property constants file that your version will generate defines three constants as follows: // Masks 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. Thanks, Glen
