[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-gnubg] bitfields
From: |
Jim Segrave |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-gnubg] bitfields |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:16:52 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
On Mon 25 Nov 2002 (19:01 +0100), Jim Segrave wrote:
> This will seem dumb, but why do we save evalcontexts with moverecords?
>
> Assuming (which may not be true) that there are relatively few
> different evalcontexts active during any run of gnubg, then you could
> replace storing the contexts with storing simply an index into a table
> of pointers to copies of the setups, which would make the storage
> requirements even smaller (and makes comparing setups and contexts
> even faster), for what that might be worth.
Umm - I just poked about in eval.c. Nevermind, it's already been well
addressed.
--
Jim Segrave address@hidden
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Bitfields, (continued)
[Bug-gnubg] Bitfields, W.Stroop, 2002/11/25
[Bug-gnubg] bitfields, W.Stroop, 2002/11/25
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] bitfields, Gary Wong, 2002/11/25
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] bitfields, Jim Segrave, 2002/11/25
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] bitfields,
Jim Segrave <=
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] bitfields, Gary Wong, 2002/11/25
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] bitfields, Jim Segrave, 2002/11/25
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] bitfields, Joern Thyssen, 2002/11/25
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] bitfields, Jim Segrave, 2002/11/25
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] bitfields, Joseph Heled, 2002/11/25
RE: [Bug-gnubg] bitfields, Øystein Johansen, 2002/11/25