Leonard Mada wrote:
I found some interesting code inside the function
ScInterpreter::ScPropper() [in interpr1.cxx]. namely, there is a while
loop and an unnecessary subtraction is nested inside this while loop:
see pStr[nPos - 1]
while( nPos < nLen )
{
aTmpStr.SetChar( 0, pStr[nPos-1] ); // <----------HERE
if ( !ScGlobal::pCharClass->isLetter( aTmpStr, 0 ) )
pStr[nPos] = pUpr[nPos];
else
pStr[nPos] = pLwr[nPos];
nPos++;
}
This could be easily rewritten to:
xub_StrLen nPos = 0; // <--------- MODIFIED
const xub_StrLen nLen = aStr.Len() - 1; // <--------- MODIFIED
// NEED TO TEST (aStr.Len() == 0) ???
while( nPos < nLen )
{
aTmpStr.SetChar( 0, pStr[nPos] ); // <--------- MODIFIED
nPos++; // <-------------------- MOVED HERE
if ( !ScGlobal::pCharClass->isLetter( aTmpStr, 0 ) )
pStr[nPos] = pUpr[nPos];
else
pStr[nPos] = pLwr[nPos];
// nPos++; // <------------------ MOVED BEFORE IF
}
aStr.ReleaseBufferAccess( nLen + 1); // <----- MODIFIED
PushString( aStr );
Is this optimization feasible?
That wouldn't give any noticeable performance gain (probably not even
measurable), so let's keep the old code. Having a variable nLen contain
the string length, as the name suggests, is also easier to read and
understand.
Niklas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
