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 &lt;&lt; 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

Reply via email to