On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 18:28, Thomas Pfaff wrote: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Robert Collins wrote: > > > On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 00:54, Thomas Pfaff wrote: > > > 2003-03-19 Thomas Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > * pthread.cc (pthread_equal): Replacement for pthread_equal in > > > thread.cc. > > > * thread.cc: Rename pthread_equal to pthread::equal throughout. > > > (pthread_equal): Remove. > > > * thread.h (pthread::equal): New static method. > > > > This seems mostly pointless to me. > > > > A few notes: > > > > Why use a static method? you'll always have one pthread to compare to , > > so using operator == is appropriate. In fact, operator == already does > > the right thing as it is the entire contents of pthread_equal. > > > > So: where pthread_equal is used internally, you could switch to (for > > instance) > > == > > if (&thread == joiner) > > == > > The only reason for this patch is to give the compiler the opportunity to > do some inline optimizations. Without it it will always issue a function > call only to test for equality of two pointers.
Huh? Not if you use the operator == syntax it won't. The synthetic operator == is always inlined. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
