Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
>> If an extra call level really matters, its "inline" equivalent in
>> the header would probably be good.
>
> Well, the hashing is supposed to be as fast as possible, so I would like
> to avoid that extra call level. However, the end result is not so pretty
> because FNV32_BASE needs to be made public (OTOH it removes more lines
> than it adds):
I think our usual answer is "can we measure the difference to
demonstrate that the overhead for an extra call matter?"
As two functions sit next to each other in a single file, the code
duplication does not bother me _that_ much. A single liner
/* keep implementations of these two in sync */
in front of these two functions would not hurt, but whoever attempts
to come up with a better hash needs to stare at this file carefully
anyway, so lack of such carefulness probably wouldn't be too big an
issue, either.
But the above 8 lines are something we need to worry about after we
definitely know that we MUST have two independent functions that are
supposed to be kept in sync; a patch that makes us worry them before
we know is a premature optimization, and that bothers me even more
than the actual code duplication that can drift apart.
