Should we make DebugOnly MOZ_STACK_CLASS?
On 2014-07-15, 9:21 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
Hi,
The comment at the top of mfbt/DebugOnly.h includes this text:
* Note that DebugOnly instances still take up one byte of space, plus padding,
* when used as members of structs.
I'm in the
That sounds like a good idea, if possible.
2014-07-16 14:41 GMT-04:00 Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com:
Should we make DebugOnly MOZ_STACK_CLASS?
On 2014-07-15, 9:21 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
Hi,
The comment at the top of mfbt/DebugOnly.h includes this text:
* Note that
Hi,
The comment at the top of mfbt/DebugOnly.h includes this text:
* Note that DebugOnly instances still take up one byte of space, plus padding,
* when used as members of structs.
I'm in the process of making js::HashTable (a very common class)
smaller by converting some DebugOnly fields to
It may be worth reminding people that this is not specific to DebugOnly but
general to all C++ classes: In C++, there is no such thing as a class with
size 0. So expecting DebugOnlyT to be of size 0 is not misunderstanding
DebugOnly, it is misunderstanding C++. The only way to have empty classes
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Benoit Jacob jacob.benoi...@gmail.com wrote:
Having to guard them in #ifdef DEBUG takes away much of the point
of DebugOnlyT, doesn't it?
Yes. For the fields I've converted, I removed the DebugOnly wrapper.
Nick
___
5 matches
Mail list logo