Yeah, the patch is incorrect. I've taken an initial relook at the code and
have spotted a couple of possible optimizations, in addition to general
cleanup. I will try to get an updated version to you by the end of the week.

Tim

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Robert Osfield <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi Tim,
>
> On 15 April 2015 at 09:01, Tim Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Robert Osfield <
> [email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Alberto,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the further info.  I'm not the author of this particular file
> >> so I'm learning from just sitting down reviewing the code.  The code in
> >> question is a good example of C++ gone bad - it's an unreadable mess.
> >
> > Unreadability is in the eyes of the reader :) I personally find that
> adding
> > std:: to symbols that are quite, well, standard clutters up the code and
> > makes it less, if not un-, readable. To each his own. Having said that,
> this
> > code is quite complex and the comments are sparse. I'll see if I can
> improve
> > them in another patch.
> >>
> >>
> >> The use of the using namespace std at the top of the file is hindering
> >> reability.  So I've just removed this.  My compiler seems to be a bit
> too
> >> lenient with not reporting all of the missing std::'s so I'll reboot
> later
> >> under Windows to see if VS2013 is any better.
> >>
> >> Looking at the MeshOptimizers.cpp there are two instances of the use of
> >> std::remove(), with only one of them modified in your submitted code.  I
> >> need to sit down and fully review the code to see what is meant in each
> >> instance.
> >>
> > The first use of remove() in LRUCache::addEntries() must not be wrapped
> with
> > erase(). The removed entries are overwritten with new entries.
> >
> > The patch concerns the remove() in
> VertexCacheVisitor::doVertexOptimization.
> > erase() isn't appropriate here either: the code is in a tight loop, and
> the
> > whole vector is deleted at the end of the function anyway. However, I'm
> not
> > convinced that the remove() is doing anything useful and will ponder
> that.
>
> Does this mean the original patch with the addition of the erase() is
> incorrect?
>
> Have you had a chance to have a look at refining the MeshoOptimizers.cpp?
>
> Cheers,
> Robert.
> _______________________________________________
> osg-submissions mailing list
> [email protected]
>
> http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org
>
_______________________________________________
osg-submissions mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org

Reply via email to