[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: [PATCH] monotone ls authors
From: |
Nathaniel Smith |
Subject: |
Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: [PATCH] monotone ls authors |
Date: |
Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:33:19 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.9i |
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 09:33:45AM -0800, Steven E. Harris wrote:
> Nathaniel Smith <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > It's completely against the idiom,
>
> What idiom? It's idiomatic in our house style here.
The one used throughout the monotone code, then. (And all other C++
I've happened to come across, but that's tangential :-).)
> > and does _not_ improve performance. (end() is inlined anyway!)
>
> Even if so, you're inlining something that looks like this
>
> ,----
> | iterator end()
> | {
> | return (iterator(_Mylast));
> | }
> `----
>
> (constructing a spurious temporary) on every termination
> test. Inlining may save call overhead but says nothing about
> eliminating operations.
Compilers are allowed to eliminate temporaries, hoist repeated options
out of loops, etc., too, and I would be reasonably shocked if g++
couldn't in this case (though I haven't verified).
We can make code longer and harder to read, and spend time enforcing
this, _after_ there's evidence that this makes any measurable
difference and is a hot-spot :-).
-- Nathaniel
--
Details are all that matters; God dwells there, and you never get to
see Him if you don't struggle to get them right. -- Stephen Jay Gould