On 04/12/12 14:34, Greg Ercolano wrote:
> On 04/12/12 13:40, Domingo Alvarez Duarte wrote:
>> For comparison sizeof(Flu_Tree_Browser) = 92 ,
>> sizeof(Flu_Tree_Browser::Node) = 92 and they have a lot of functionality
>> and facilities to query tree nodes.
I just pulled FLU 2.14 (*) on my linux64 system,
and got very different numbers from yours, not sure why:
sizeof(Flu_Tree_Browser): 728
sizeof(Flu_Tree_Browser::Node): 144
In my test code, I'm printing:
printf("sizeof(Flu_Tree_Browser): %d\n", (int)sizeof(Flu_Tree_Browser));
printf("sizeof(Flu_Tree_Browser::Node): %d\n",
(int)sizeof(Flu_Tree_Browser::Node));
This is on the same machine I calculated the sizeof()
values for Fl_Tree I posted in my previous message.
Perhaps it's because I'm on a 64bit system.
It's probably not accurate to compare this way because
these are two different toolkits which might generate
some of its memory overhead on the fly with pointers.
Anwyay, my point regarding sizeof() is just that you
probably won't end up saving memory if you try to
derive the tree nodes from FLTK widgets, which is I think
what you were getting at wrt redundant data between
Fl_Tree_Item and Fl_Widget's, due to the need for an
Fl_Group container just to make it useful.
_______________________________________________
fltk-bugs mailing list
fltk-bugs@easysw.com
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-bugs
