On 04/04/2009, at 1:48 AM, Dan McGee wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Sebastian Nowicki
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 29/03/2009, at 5:34 AM, Dan McGee wrote:
I'm assuming the below code didn't really change from what was in
the
backend- can you verify this, or point out what you did modify?
For the most part, yes. I did "inline" some functions, which were
static.
There might have been other minor changes.
Was this strictly necessary? I much prefer things being split out in
functions as it is much easier to read. gcc will *always* optimize
these back in if they are called as infrequently as they probably are
(or in a tight loop), so don't try to outsmart the compiler.
There were two choices, inlining it like I did, or copying and pasting
the functions. Since they were used only once (as far as I know), I
chose manual inlining. The functions are static within the libalpm
code, so I couldn't have simply called them, unfortunately. This
wasn't an optimisation of any sort.
_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
