On Sunday, September 8, 2013 6:22:01 AM UTC+3, Benoit Jacob wrote:
Hi,
It seems that we have some much-included header files including algorithm
just to get std::min and std::max.
Is it because min/max are used at the h file? can it be delegated to cpp files?
how many other files
2013/9/12 Avi Hal avi...@gmail.com
On Sunday, September 8, 2013 6:22:01 AM UTC+3, Benoit Jacob wrote:
Hi,
It seems that we have some much-included header files including
algorithm
just to get std::min and std::max.
Is it because min/max are used at the h file?
Yes.
can it
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 07:19:54AM -0400, Benoit Jacob wrote:
2013/9/12 Avi Hal avi...@gmail.com
On Sunday, September 8, 2013 6:22:01 AM UTC+3, Benoit Jacob wrote:
Hi,
It seems that we have some much-included header files including
algorithm
just to get std::min and
On 9/12/13 6:35 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Note we have *many* inline functions that the compiler decide to never
inline. We should maybe try to detect those on all platforms and move
those functions out of headers.
gcc -Winline will report uninlined inline functions, but the warnings
are VERY
On 09/12/2013 11:08 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
On 9/12/13 6:35 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Note we have *many* inline functions that the compiler decide to never
inline. We should maybe try to detect those on all platforms and move
those functions out of headers.
gcc -Winline will report
I suppose that that metric will be different between compilers (msvc vs gcc vs
clang (which we don't officially build with, but I bet is the easiest to get
the info out of)), and possibly between platforms, versions, etc. I wouldn't be
surprised if the context in which the header is included
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:59:30PM +0200, Julian Seward wrote:
On 09/12/2013 11:08 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
On 9/12/13 6:35 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Note we have *many* inline functions that the compiler decide to never
inline. We should maybe try to detect those on all platforms and move
On 9/9/13 00:29, Nicholas Cameron wrote:
I don't think these kind of time improvements make it worth
duplicating std library code into mfbt, we may as well just pull in
the headers and forget about it.
+1 to that.
We've been trying to get *away* from requiring special Mozilla-isms in
our
On 09.09.2013 03:21, Benoit Jacob wrote:
Again, how many other similar wins are we leaving on the table because
they're only 10s on a clobber build? It's of course hard to know, which is
why I've suggested the (number of useful lines of code) / (total lines of
code included) ratio as a
I timed builds to see if this makes a significant difference and it did not.
I timed a clobber debug build using clang with no ccache on Linux on a fast
laptop. I timed using a pull from m-c about a week old (I am using this pull
because I have a lot of other stats on it). I then applied
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Nicholas Cameron
nick.r.came...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think these kind of time improvements make it worth duplicating std
library code into mfbt, we may as well just pull in the headers and forget
about it. A caveat would be if it makes a significant
We have many other headers including algorithm; it would be interesting
to compare the percentage of our cpp files that recursively include
algorithm before and after that patch; I suppose that just a single patch
like that is not enough to move that needle much, because there are other
ways that
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 08:52:23PM -0400, Benoit Jacob wrote:
We have many other headers including algorithm; it would be interesting
to compare the percentage of our cpp files that recursively include
algorithm before and after that patch; I suppose that just a single patch
like that is not
Again, how many other similar wins are we leaving on the table because
they're only 10s on a clobber build? It's of course hard to know, which is
why I've suggested the (number of useful lines of code) / (total lines of
code included) ratio as a meaningful metric.
But I'm completely OK with
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:12:35AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 08:52:23PM -0400, Benoit Jacob wrote:
We have many other headers including algorithm; it would be interesting
to compare the percentage of our cpp files that recursively include
algorithm before and after
On 9/8/13 7:29 PM, Nicholas Cameron wrote:
I timed builds to see if this makes a significant difference and it did not..
The other thing that reducing .i size helps is Windows PGO memory usage.
See graph at
16 matches
Mail list logo
