On 05/22/2006 04:49 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
> > Great, thanks. In reply to your other questions: "casts are bad" :), > and I don't think that performance is a good excuse for randomly > manually inlining functions either (sometimes overall performance is > improved by reducing executable size since more code can then be cached > in any case). You could already pick cycle-counting holes in the > inlined code too; e.g. use of pcalloc is redundant since only the NUL > terminator is preserved. Thanks for explanation. You convinced me :-). Fixed in r408729. Regards Rüdiger
