[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: inline build_string performance
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: inline build_string performance |
Date: |
Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:37:34 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 |
On 06/26/2012 10:33 AM, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> This may be implemented without reverting previous stuff.
Sure, but if we we use build_literal for literals, and
build_string for non-literals, there's a performance
downside for having build_string be inline (namely,
it bloats the code), but no performance upside.
Perhaps I'm not quite following your idea, as
I thought the signature would be build_literal ("foo"),
whereas your build_literal also wants the string length.
- inline build_string performance, Paul Eggert, 2012/06/26
- Re: inline build_string performance, Andreas Schwab, 2012/06/26
- Re: inline build_string performance, Dmitry Antipov, 2012/06/26
- Re: inline build_string performance, Paul Eggert, 2012/06/26
- Re: inline build_string performance, Dmitry Antipov, 2012/06/26
- Re: inline build_string performance,
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: inline build_string performance, Dmitry Antipov, 2012/06/26
- Re: inline build_string performance, Paul Eggert, 2012/06/26
- Re: inline build_string performance, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/06/26
- Re: inline build_string performance, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2012/06/26
- Re: inline build_string performance, Stefan Monnier, 2012/06/26