mwolff added a comment.
In D11487#230791 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D11487#230791>, @jtamate wrote: > In D11487#230755 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D11487#230755>, @mwolff wrote: > > > yes, definitely don't roll your own lower_bound - use the STL provided one. Are you really compiling in release mode while measuring this? Also, I can only repeat myself in saying that you shouldn't use callgrind for performance measurements anymore, perf/hotspot should give you a much better view of where the CPU cycles are spent. > > > One of the thinks I like about using callgrind, well, kcachegrind, is that I have the tree of calls to one method, that I don't have in perf report. > As I said, I've been unable to compile hotspot yet, because I don't have the KF5 devel libraries installed from the distro, and I do not know how to specify an alternative directory in hotspsot cmake. Huh, just specify `-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX` to the same path where you install the KF5 devel packages to, as a simple fix. Or try to set `CMAKE_LIBRARY_PATH`, CMAKE_INCLUDE_PATH` and `CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH` env vars. Or well, just use the appimage? > I'll try again with std::lower_bound, I'll take a look at folding, but I was unable to make it work last time. > There is a big difference between lower_bound and this implementation: lower_bound does a < checking, while this does a <=. Do a lower_bound and then increment from there, or maybe try to use upper_bound? I'm not acquainted with the exact semantics you are looking for, but in general: Don't reinvent the wheel, but rather try to aggregate existing building blocks. REPOSITORY R39 KTextEditor REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D11487 To: jtamate, #frameworks, #kate Cc: mwolff, cullmann, michaelh, kevinapavew, ngraham, demsking, sars, dhaumann
