On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:01:53 +0100 s@po <tux...@sapo.pt> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 13:34:54 +0100 (BST) > Jim Jackson <j...@franjam.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > sizeof() is calculated by the compiler, not at run time. The code > > generated would be the same. > > Hello Jim, > Indeed it his, my point was only a observation, that if size is > fixed, no need to calculate it at compile time, the preprocessor can > solve that with a macro.. The code generated will be indeed the same. > Only was a observation ;)
I vote for leaving it as a function. What would be gained by making it a macro? A microsecond? What are the bottlenecks of the software? Are keyboard or mouse input involved? If these sizeof() calls are deep in a tight nested loop, by all means make them into a macro. Otherwise, why give up the simplicity of a function for the sometimes edge case weirdness of a macro? It's funny. So many times people advocate jumping through hoops to save a millisecond in a program operated by and therefore bottlenecked by a 100wpm typist. 100wpm is 500 keystrokes per minute, or 8.33 keystrokes per second, which means each keystroke takes 120 milliseconds. The 1ms savings *just doesn't matter*. And yes, as a matter of fact, I often do use "useless use of cat". Costs me nothing perceptible, and makes it easier to rearrange pipelines til I get them right. SteveT Steve Litt June 2019 featured book: Thriving in Tough Times http://www.troubleshooters.com/thrive _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
