On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:34:59AM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> the side effects of unsigned integers are not what people are used to
> think about when designing an algorithm. You are changing the
> mathematical base in an unneeded and hardly foreseeable way. Code that
> looks correct and used to work fine, suddenly starts to behave
> wrong. I doubt that you've checked each and every usage of the
> variables you changed lately.
There are places in tiles, tile managers, and pixel regions that use
negative numbers in unexpected ways (for example, theres's a spot in
the shapeburst code that uses a negative rowstride to go backwards
through an image buffer). Changing these variables to unsigned will
obviously break things.
> If you are about to optimize parts of the GIMP, the first thing you
> should do is write a test suite and benchmarking facility for this
> part of The GIMP. No optimization should be allowed without such a
> test suite.
I can't agree more with this. Profile the GIMP before you try
optimizing it. You may be surprised to discover where the GIMP spends
most of its CPU time. And trying to optimize a moving code base is
just plain stupid.
I love catnip mice.
It's why I chew their heads off.
They're good for breakfast.
Gimp-developer mailing list