On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 22:13 +0100, Tim Janik wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
>
> > Ter, 2005-12-13 às 17:11 +0100, Tim Janik escreveu:
> >
> > IMHO, some functions are obvious candidates for inlining, regardless
> > of any profiling done on them. For instance:
> >
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 18:12 -0500, muppet wrote:
> Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro said:
> > On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 15:40 -0500, muppet wrote:
> >> throwing away the ability to fix bugs behind the scenes
> >
> > I meant this only for functions that are trivial; do you think there's
> > any chance for a
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro said:
> On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 15:40 -0500, muppet wrote:
>> throwing away the ability to fix bugs behind the scenes
>
> I meant this only for functions that are trivial; do you think there's
> any chance for anyone ever spot a bug in g_strdup?
You already did --- the
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 15:40 -0500, muppet wrote:
> Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro said:
> > IMHO, some functions are obvious candidates for inlining, regardless
> > of any profiling done on them. For instance:
> >
> > gchar*
> > g_strdup (const gchar *str)
> > {
> > gchar *new_str;
> > gsize leng
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 10:10, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> This function is trivial. I doubt you'll ever find any new bugs in it.
[...]
> [ BTW, "if (str)" could be changed to "if (G_LIKELY(str))" ]
Think about this.
--
Alan M. Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
Ter, 2005-12-13 às 17:11 +0100, Tim Janik escreveu:
more important than _how_ to inline is _what_ and _why_ to inline.
in general, things that can easily and reasonably be inlined have been
already been provided as inlined functions or mac
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro said:
> IMHO, some functions are obvious candidates for inlining, regardless
> of any profiling done on them. For instance:
>
> gchar*
> g_strdup (const gchar *str)
> {
> gchar *new_str;
> gsize length;
>
> if (str)
> {
> length = strlen (str) + 1;
>
Ter, 2005-12-13 às 17:11 +0100, Tim Janik escreveu:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 18:44 +, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> >> Seg, 2005-12-12 às 19:29 +0100, Balazs Scheidler escreveu:
> >> [...]
> >>>
> >>> And while I am at it, would it be poss
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 18:44 +, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
Seg, 2005-12-12 às 19:29 +0100, Balazs Scheidler escreveu:
[...]
And while I am at it, would it be possible to change the atomic
operations to inline functions? I'd think it is muc
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 18:44 +, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> Seg, 2005-12-12 às 19:29 +0100, Balazs Scheidler escreveu:
> [...]
> >
> > And while I am at it, would it be possible to change the atomic
> > operations to inline functions? I'd think it is much better inline
> > single-instruc
Seg, 2005-12-12 às 19:29 +0100, Balazs Scheidler escreveu:
[...]
>
> And while I am at it, would it be possible to change the atomic
> operations to inline functions? I'd think it is much better inline
> single-instruction functions as otherwise the call overhead is too
> great.
I agree. Also
11 matches
Mail list logo
