On 09/05/2013 09:38 AM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 07:12:40AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: >> That looks excellent. > > Yep, quite. > >> I was also thinking bit set. The fact that std::bitset<> takes a size >> suggests it is >> putting the bits in the instance block, not in a separate block of memory. > > I think the issue is not the 'best' kind of bit vector (his > implementation is more or less like the bitset, there are also > std::vector<bool>, or even std::set<LAYER_NUM> which are not > compile-time bound in size).
Says you. Says me: having the the bits in the instance block matter. I guess if what I have to say is going to be labelled as irrelevant right out the box, I'd be wasting my time continuing. I don't have it to waste. Of course you can't have an 'unbounded' > fixed size structure (there are tricks, like, keep the first 32 often > used bits in a local word and allocate a block if other ones are needed, > but this is an implementation optimization). > > I think the question is if to keep the current fixed-in-code layer > stackup or moving toward a more dynamic layer structure. > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
