On 4/9/2012 2:41 PM, jean-pierre charras wrote: > Le 09/04/2012 17:37, Wayne Stambaugh a écrit : >> On 4/9/2012 9:50 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: >>> >>> Wayne, regarding: >>> >>> DRAWSEGMENT::Format(), it concerns me in two minor ways: >>> >>> case S_SEGMENT: // Line >>> aFormatter->Print( 0, "line (pts xy(%s) xy(%s))", >>> FormatBIU( m_Start ).c_str(), >>> FormatBIU( m_End ).c_str() ); >>> >>> >>> a) I don't think this is s-expression, the xy(...) should be (xy ...) >>> >>> >>> b) It may be worth considering losing one token, namely the "(draw >>> line" might be >>> "(gr_line". (Really, I am just trying to cover my ass.) I don't >>> want to be blamed for >>> the slow parsing speed later. :) Any reduction in another token >>> that is simple like >>> this is worth considering. Each token in the stream is another >>> delay, which cumulatively >>> may be noticeable. Maybe a common prefix for the graphic primitives >>> in this >>> DRAWSEGMENT::Format() would allow you to omit one token. >>> >>> Suggesting "gr_" or something like it prefixed to the primitive, >>> instead of a full token >>> "draw ". My concern is speed later. However, I'm guessing you are >>> reserving the right >>> to makes changes later. :) >>> >>> >>> I'm guessing it really gets important on the more common objects like >>> tracks and vias, >>> *especially tracks*, which end up being about the most common object >>> in the file. >>> >>> >>> ALSO: >>> ========== >>> >>> Maybe we can get the (track...) on one line as a default, this will >>> help also, since we're using two lines now. >>> >>> Whitespace in this format is not supposed to matter, but again, I am >>> trying to get out of the way regarding parsing speed later. >> >> As of now, the deepest indentation level is 6 spaces. I know the >> indentation is responsible for a lot of the additional file size but >> getting rid of it would seriously reduce the readability file. I'm not >> sure there is an elegant solution to that problem. >> >> Wayne > > Yes, tracks are the most common object in the file. > In fact, track is the single object that really needs to be optimized in > file. > (I have boards with more than 120 000 tracks) > In order to reduce the time to read (or write) the brd file, an option > could be do not repeat some parameters > if they do not change. > Mainly track width and track layer values could use the last value read. > So consecutive tracks having the same width and layer (very common in > Pcbnew) need only 2 parameters (Y and Y coordinates), > This trick is often used in many applications. >
This could be a nifty optimization. Are the track objects currently sorted? This would need to done to maximize this optimization. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
