On Thursday 28 July 2011 01:00:10 Hal V. Engel wrote: > But there is one minor and very common issue with the code that should be > fixed. In the for loop > > for (..; ..; j++) > > should be > > for (..; ..; ++j) > > if you use j++ the compiler has to make a copy of j with each iteration of > the loop but if you use ++j it does not have to make a copy. This will > make the loop more efficient although only by a small amount.
Are you sure about that? I just tried it with a little example and at least gcc compiles both variants to the exact same assembly code. Tried it with and without -O2. Regards, Stefan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Got Input? Slashdot Needs You. Take our quick survey online. Come on, we don't ask for help often. Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek. http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
