On 08/05/14 20:44, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: > On 05/08/2014 02:18 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: >> On 05/08/2014 01:31 PM, John Beard wrote: >>> On 08/05/14 15:53, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: >> Submit a patch. >> >> Hope it gets accepted. > > Since your interest is limited to the *.kicad_mod file. You can use the > mentioned DOM > parser in your rewrite of the KICAD_PLUGIN::Footprint*() functions.
My interest is not limited solely to .kicad_mod formats, they are just a convenient starting place with more immediate use cases for extended data, particularly since there is useful Python integration, which would be a natural place to use data not handled by the KiCad core. I'm not presuming to rewrite anything significant. > Please include comparative benchmarks with your patch submission. If there's > no > appreciable performance hit, then you have a chance getting the patch > accepted. > Of course. Is there existing infrastructure for benchmarking, for example any used when designing the current parser? I see a container_test.cpp in tools with some timing code, but no other significant usage of GetRunningMicroSecs(). I also see USE_INSTRUMENTATION in pcbnew/files.cpp, but that seems to be the only use, and is not really useful for me, as I don't want to test my network/disk/cache IO, and the setup code, I only care about the parser. John _______________________________________________ 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
