[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Windows 64 port

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Windows 64 port
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 00:06:24 +0200

> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:35:38 -0800
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden, 
>  address@hidden
> On 03/02/2012 01:22 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > it is beyond ridiculous to say that a single extra clock cycle
> > in a program such as Emacs should be seriously considered as an
> > important factor to weigh against code cleanness and maintainability.
> My primary objection to the change has always been maintainability
> and cleanness; any extra instructions are in the noise.

Then why did you bring up that argument in the first place?  If
nothing else, it had Fabrice and myself waste some of our time trying
to look at the code emitted by the compiler.

> ABLOCKS_BUSY is sometimes a pointer and sometimes an integer
> (converted to a pointer).  At the point when this code is executed:
>     int i = 0, aligned = (intptr_t) ABLOCKS_BUSY (abase);
> ABLOCKS_BUSY is an integer.  Changing the code to look like this:
>     int i = 0, aligned = (ABLOCKS_BUSY (abase) != NULL);
> would cause a reader of the code to naturally make the
> incorrect assumption that ABLOCKS_BUSY is a pointer.  On
> this ground alone the patch is dubious.  The facts that
> the patch is not needed for Windows 64 and that it might
> slow things down a bit on some platforms are merely
> icing on the cake.

See, there's no cake here to ice.  The way I see it, Fabrice is trying
to contribute, and you discourage him on false pretenses.  That comes
nowhere near any cakes; that's simply unfair.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]