Norman Vine wrote:
Unless someone literally follows your advice and removes all the
inlined code that we currently have :-)
Now, that would be a waste of precious time :-)
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear
Erik Hofman writes:
> Norman Vine wrote:
> > Erik Hofman writes:
> >
> >>Tests have shown
> >>that in-lining code doesn't make a huge difference (actually the code
> >>might become slower ...) but it decreased the executable tremendously.
> >
> >
> > IMO the jury is still out on this :-)
> >
Norman Vine wrote:
Erik Hofman writes:
Tests have shown
that in-lining code doesn't make a huge difference (actually the code
might become slower ...) but it decreased the executable tremendously.
IMO the jury is still out on this :-)
Compiling with minimal inlining *will* decrease compile ti
Erik Hofman writes:
>
> Tests have shown
> that in-lining code doesn't make a huge difference (actually the code
> might become slower ...) but it decreased the executable tremendously.
IMO the jury is still out on this :-)
Compiling with minimal inlining *will* decrease compile times and
IIRC
Erik Hofman wrote:
Hi
I have the following questions about FlightGear-0.9.2. Could you please
help me to post the following information to the development group?
The questions are as follows:
In FlightGear-0.9.2, the file size of fgfs.exe I download from website
is 2,656 KB, but the size of the
Hi
I have the following questions about FlightGear-0.9.2. Could you please
help me to post the following information to the development group?
The questions are as follows:
In FlightGear-0.9.2, the file size of fgfs.exe I download from website
is 2,656 KB, but the size of the same file became 46
Fwd. for list non-member, please include in any replies.
Original Message
Subject:help
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:49:30 -0400
From: Dai, Chengbi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi
I have the following questions about FlightGear-0.
