Hi Thorsten, On Monday 18 December 2006 11:46, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> > Aah. Let me rephrase. Are -you- really sure the external include guard > > optimization provides enough benefit on all the compilers we are using > > to make it worthwhile to degrade readability by adding noise? Ie. is > > this a modest gain in machine time compared to a perhaps much costlier > > loss of human time? Can you provide some numbers to support this > > optimization or should we perhaps be conservative and not use it? ;-) > > ok, seems we've deadlocked here. ;-) > > Point is, the vast majority of the code uses that idiom as of today, > and I'm reluctant to advice people of the contrary (as long as there > are build time degradations on at least one prominent platform, at > least when building on a network volume). Rather sooner than later, > all used compilers will perform this optimization by themselves, and > I'd say let's add the rule then. I'm relatively indifferent about > this, though - if people think it's ok to start removing external > header guards right now (because it will take years to clean them up > anyway), I'd be fine with that, too. I hate them that much that I am willing to do a script that would do the removal ;-) What is the platform/compiler that probably needs this, please? Any volunteer to do a comparison of the "with" and "without" compilation times? Regards, Jan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
