On 9/26/2017 3:56 PM, Camille 019 wrote: > Hi, > > Ok, I'll keep the patchset synchronized with the master branch, for > future inclusion. When will the feature freeze take effect ?
I was hoping it would be by the end of September but obviously that is not going to happen. I have my symbol library table work done. I just have to do some more testing. I plan on merging next week since I will be available that weekend to fix any issues as this will be a disruptive change. At that time, I will make a last call before the feature freeze so hopefully no later than the end of October until the stable 5 branch. > > I agree my patchset has no real impact on the performance. I mainly > wanted to test clang-tidy on a consistent source code base. I also think > that keeping automated checks empty of warning can help to improve the > overall code quality. > > Regards, > > -- > Camille > > > Le lun. 25 sept. 2017 à 16:21, Wayne Stambaugh <[email protected]> a > écrit : >> On 9/25/2017 4:07 AM, Maciej Sumiński wrote: >> >> Hi Camille, I think the attached patches are sensible, even though >> I hope most compilers apply optimizations to avoid performance >> penalties whenever possible. >> >> I agree although I'm not sure about the compiler optimization. A quick >> look at the patches and I'm not sure the performance gains will be >> that noticeable. Most of the changes are in code that is called once >> on demand in response to a user request as opposed to the drawing or >> drc code where large numbers of calls happen frequently. That being >> said, we really should be doing a better job of not passing entire >> objects on the stack unless there is a good reason to do so. >> >> If the attached patches are autogenerated, then I would kindly ask >> you to generate them when we reach the feature freeze stage. There >> are a few branches that await to be merged and I am not sure >> whether your patches would not create too many conflicts. During >> the feature freeze we anticipate the code changes will not be as >> disruptive as they are now. >> >> I second this. There are quite a few outstanding patches that will >> likely have enough conflicts so I would rather not pile more on top of >> that. >> >> Regards, Orson On 09/23/2017 12:17 PM, Camille 019 wrote: >> >> Hi all, I recently play with clang-tidy on the KiCad source >> code. Here is a set of 2 patch which fix the >> >> unnecessary-copy-initialization<https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/performance-unnecessary-copy-initialization.html> >> and >> >> unnecessary-value-param<https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/performance-unnecessary-value-param.html> >> checks. I will run more performance checks in the future. The >> next two: - >> >> for-range-copy<https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/performance-for-range-copy.html> >> - >> >> type-promotion-in-math-fn<https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/performance-type-promotion-in-math-fn.html> >> Best regards, -- Camille >> _______________________________________________ Mailing list: >> https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : >> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> Unsubscribe : >> https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : >> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >> _______________________________________________ Mailing list: >> https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : >> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> Unsubscribe : >> https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : >> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >> _______________________________________________ Mailing list: >> https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : >> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> Unsubscribe : >> https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : >> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
