On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Miguel Angel Marchuet wrote:
> Talking about readlocks is completely intentionally, because the
> server operates in serialize mode, the server is not multi thread.
Absolutely false information. You've said is was intentional so
you do not know that it's potentially very serio
-Messaggio Originale-
Da: "Miguel Angel Marchuet"
A: "Przemyslaw Czerpak"
Cc: "Enrico Maria Giordano" ;
"Xharbour-Developers List"
Data invio: mercoledì 16 settembre 2009 14.02
Oggetto: Re: [xHarbour-developers] ChangeLog: 2009-09-16 11:30 U
Talking about readlocks is completely intentionally, because the
server operates in serialize mode, the server is not multi thread.
for this reason RE_TURBO can be activated by default. Our application
is running without GPF as you explain previously.
REDBFCDX is only the beginning, as i explain
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Miguel Angel Marchuet wrote:
Hi,
> Results of test:
> withconst 32.41 seconds
> without const 32.34 seconds
> Press any key to continue...
> Demostration :
> #DEFINE REC_TEST 1
> FUNCTION MAIN()
>LOCAL p, n
>REQUEST HB_GT_WIN
>p := Seconds()
>FOR
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:32:21 +0200
Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote:
> It may only increase the speed because it gives information to compiler
> that the body of string cannot be changed by called function so it's
> possible to use deeper optimizations.
IMO, it's excellent for security dependent applica
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:02:25 +0200
Miguel Angel Marchuet wrote:
> Results of test:
>
> withconst 32.41 seconds
> without const 32.34 seconds
> Press any key to continue...
>
> Demostration :
> #DEFINE REC_TEST 1
The difference is TOTALLY negligible. I cannot count what the diff
Results of test:
withconst 32.41 seconds
without const 32.34 seconds
Press any key to continue...
Demostration :
#DEFINE REC_TEST 1
FUNCTION MAIN()
LOCAL p, n
REQUEST HB_GT_WIN
p := Seconds()
FOR n := 1 TO REC_TEST
CallConstTest()
NEXT
? " with
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Enrico Maria Giordano wrote:
> > I see the previous changes of Phil, some days ago
> > i decided not port to xharbour (const) beacause it only
> > changes speed by security under some compilers. I remark
> > some compilers (BCC for example almoust at my machine)
> I can't see h
2) const does not affect speed.
here affect, i test it carefully, it's low cost
but is low cost, almoust here, i don't know if it depends
on compiler, OS or hardware. But here occurs.
Is a low speed cost, but exists ;)
It's only a comment, is not a critical comment.
I prefer first to underst
Miguel,
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Miguel Angel Marchuet
wrote:
> I see the previous changes of Phil, some days ago
> i decided not port to xharbour (const) beacause it only
> changes speed by security under some compilers. I remark
> some compilers (BCC for example almoust at my machine)
Hello,
I can't talk with you guys about C code because I don't know C code :)
But if I could choose, this would be my prio list:
1) Stability
2) Speed
3) Features
Thank you!
Patrick
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Miguel Angel Marchuet
wrote:
> thanks andi ;)
>
> I see the previous changes of
-Messaggio Originale-
Da: "Miguel Angel Marchuet"
A: "Andi Jahja"
Cc: "xHarbour Developers Mailing List"
; "Ron Pinkas"
Data invio: mercoledì 16 settembre 2009 9.22
Oggetto: Re: [xHarbour-developers] ChangeLog: 2009-09-16 11:30 UTC+0700 Andi
thanks andi ;)
I see the previous changes of Phil, some days ago
i decided not port to xharbour (const) beacause it only
changes speed by security under some compilers. I remark
some compilers (BCC for example almoust at my machine)
I'm talking about xharbour developers, because the rest normally
2009-09-16 11:30 UTC+0700 Andi Jahja
* source/common/hbfopen.c
* source/rtl/spfiles.c
* source/rtl/trace.c
! hbapifs.h -> hbapi.h
fix to compile with _HB_API_INTERNAL_ and HB_STACK_MACROSand
HB_API_MACROS
* source/rtl/filenet.c
* source/rdd/dbffpt/redbffpt1.c
! ty
14 matches
Mail list logo
