Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

> Yes, but too often this is not one-liners, but two-liners on one line: > > size_type size() const { Assert(...); return data_.size(); } Those are gone now, aren't they? ;-) Ok, I admit, my personal limit in such cases is about four lines, i.e. usually one or two initializations, and call

Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

On 16-Mar-2001 Andre Poenitz wrote: >> Are you sure that there is not a flag to gcc such that you can compile >> with -O, but without inlining? > > -fno-inline would sound appropriate, wouldn't it? It's not so much the inlined code I don't use -O (sometimes) for debugging it's that optimizati

Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | I'd actually prefer to put one-liners directly in the class definition in | my own coding as a matter of convienience and better readability, too. Of | course, the latter is arguable, but if I see | |size_type size() const | { return data_.siz

Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

> Are you sure that there is not a flag to gcc such that you can compile > with -O, but without inlining? -fno-inline would sound appropriate, wouldn't it? > [...] > The code is often easier to understand when the definition is close to the > declaration for these bits of code that are really

Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

On 15 Mar 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: [How to avoid inlining to improve debugging] > Well I consider compiling without -O an even bigger problem. Then a lot > of small problems will not be noticed until you compile with > optimization turned on. Are you sure that there is not a flag to gcc

Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On 15-Mar-2001 John Levon wrote: | | > I really do think the speedup is significant enough to live with the debugging | > problem... | | What debugging problem? I compile with only -g option and then inlined code | is no problem on debugging! Well I

Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

On 15-Mar-2001 John Levon wrote: > I really do think the speedup is significant enough to live with the debugging > problem... What debugging problem? I compile with only -g option and then inlined code is no problem on debugging! Jürgen -- -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._

Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

On 15 Mar 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > foo_inlines.h should only be included in foo.h if > INLINE_SIMPLE_METHODS is defined. > > Lgb *sigh* I really do have problems with reading :P john -- "24-hour boredom I'm convicted instantly" - Manic Street Preachers

Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | I mean there will be one in foo.C AND non-inlined copies in anything including |foo.h. | Or am I talking crap again foo_inlines.h should only be included in foo.h if INLINE_SIMPLE_METHODS is defined. Lgb

Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

On 15 Mar 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | > and widh_this.size() is inlined and do_something segfaults, the > | > segfault can look like it happened inside with_this.size(). > | > | and this is reason enough to not have this speedup ?? > > Yes,

Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > and widh_this.size() is inlined and do_something segfaults, the | > segfault can look like it happened inside with_this.size(). | | and this is reason enough to not have this speedup ?? Yes, I belive a more detrministic development environment is reas

Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

On 15 Mar 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | hum, now I'm really confused : > | > | pg008:1050 size lyx > |textdata bss dec hex filename > | 2643515 19332 43100 2705947 294a1b lyx > | pg008:1051 size lyxnew > |textdat

Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | hum, now I'm really confused : | | pg008:1050 size lyx |textdata bss dec hex filename | 2643515 19332 43100 2705947 294a1b lyx | pg008:1051 size lyxnew |textdata bss dec hex filename | 2638043 19332 43100 2

Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

On 15 Mar 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Doing lyx -x lyx-quit big.lyx, the attached patch > | gives the following results (warm cache, error around 4%) : > | > | user (s)| sys (s) | elapsed (s) | > |

Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, John Levon wrote: > On 15 Mar 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > > > John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > | Doing lyx -x lyx-quit big.lyx, the attached patch > > | gives the following results (warm cache, error around 4%) : > > | > > | user (s)| sys (s)

Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Doing lyx -x lyx-quit big.lyx, the attached patch | gives the following results (warm cache, error around 4%) : | | user (s)| sys (s) | elapsed (s) | | -- | 28.33

Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

On 15 Mar 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Doing lyx -x lyx-quit big.lyx, the attached patch > | gives the following results (warm cache, error around 4%) : > | > | user (s)| sys (s) | elapsed (s) | > |

Re: [PATCH] low-hanging fruit

John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Doing lyx -x lyx-quit big.lyx, the attached patch | gives the following results (warm cache, error around 4%) : | | user (s)| sys (s) | elapsed (s) | | -- | 28.33

[PATCH] low-hanging fruit

Doing lyx -x lyx-quit big.lyx, the attached patch gives the following results (warm cache, error around 4%) : user (s)| sys (s) | elapsed (s) | -- 28.33 (0.00%) | 0.30 (0.00%) | 29.61 (0.00%)