Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 06:50:25PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 08:59:19AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
I am tempted to commit the attached patch. Shaves ~22s off a release
build, i.e. roughly 1.2% of
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 06:50:25PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 08:59:19AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >>Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >>>I am tempted to commit the attached patch. Shaves ~22s off a release
> >>>build, i.e. roughly 1.2% of total t
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 08:59:19AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
I am tempted to commit the attached patch. Shaves ~22s off a release
build, i.e. roughly 1.2% of total time. Not exactly much, but a dozen of
such trivial changes will show...
Couldn't
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 08:59:19AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >I am tempted to commit the attached patch. Shaves ~22s off a release
> >build, i.e. roughly 1.2% of total time. Not exactly much, but a dozen of
> >such trivial changes will show...
>
> Couldn't we just re
Andre Poenitz wrote:
I am tempted to commit the attached patch. Shaves ~22s off a release
build, i.e. roughly 1.2% of total time. Not exactly much, but a dozen of
such trivial changes will show...
Couldn't we just remove clone() and implement a copy operator instead?
The instantiation will happ
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 08:25:15PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 06:57:47PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> >
> >>Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >>
> >>>I am tempted to commit the attached patch. Shaves ~22s off a release
> >>>build, i.e. roughly 1.2% of to
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 06:57:47PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
I am tempted to commit the attached patch. Shaves ~22s off a release
build, i.e. roughly 1.2% of total time. Not exactly much, but a dozen of
such trivial changes will show...
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:51:29AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> I am tempted to commit the attached patch. Shaves ~22s off a release
> build, i.e. roughly 1.2% of total time. Not exactly much, but a dozen of
> such trivial changes will show...
Your rationale is pretty compelling but this should
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 06:57:47PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >I am tempted to commit the attached patch. Shaves ~22s off a release
> >build, i.e. roughly 1.2% of total time. Not exactly much, but a dozen of
> >such trivial changes will show...
>
> Do we know why auto_pt
Bad news from the Ivory Tower, part III.
--- snip ---
#!/bin/bash
n=100 # number of classes
m=1000 # number of cycles
cc=/usr/bin/g++
function useit() {
time for i in $s ; do $cc -c $i.cpp ; done
echo ".cpp: `cat
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 10:06:40AM +1000, Roger Mc Murtrie wrote:
> In this whole lengthy diatribe, nobody seems to mention the words
> "good programming practice";
Nobody mentioned the word "butter" either, yet I would not think it
died with C++.
> perhaps it died with C++? Programing standar
for highly
unmaintable code.
Roger
On 29/08/2007, at 1:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Re: Things we do wrong
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 04:34:40PM +0100, José Matos wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 August 2007 15:45:15 Helge Hafting wrote:
> > That's a really stupid argument. Thw word "static" has too many meanings,
> > so lets disable some of them ??? The sane thing would be a
> > clean rename from "static" to seve
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 15:45:15 Helge Hafting wrote:
> That's a really stupid argument. Thw word "static" has too many meanings,
> so lets disable some of them ??? The sane thing would be a
> clean rename from "static" to several new keywords - one for each
> use. And to keep the existing nic
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:45:57PM +0200, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote:
> Infact, a few weeks ago, I was told LyX were using unnamed
> namespaces instead of statics, so I've got to the usual
> TIC++vone.pdf, where it says:
>
> "If you put local names in an unnamed namespace, you don’t
> need to give th
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 10:33:31AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >Of course it's a somewhat pathological example and we won't suddenly
> >compile 7 times faster within 1/146 diskspace when we kick anon
> >namespaces out. But the direction is clear...
>
> That would be ve
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 02:33:23AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So anybody who remembers the reasons to use the anon namespace (for
> > _functions_)? [Rhetorical question...]
>
> I seem to remember that Lars told us that it was "a good thing" (TM).
>
Tommaso Cucinotta wrote:
[...] the new C++ Standard reads in section 7.3.1.1 Unnamed Spaces,
paragraph 2: "The use of the static keyword is deprecated when
declaring objects in a namespace scope, the unnamed namespace provides
a superior alternative."
Superior how - is the question. If all
Infact, a few weeks ago, I was told LyX were using unnamed
namespaces instead of statics, so I've got to the usual
TIC++vone.pdf, where it says:
"If you put local names in an unnamed namespace, you don’t
need to give them internal linkage by making them static.
C++ deprecates the use of file stat
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Of course it's a somewhat pathological example and we won't suddenly
compile 7 times faster within 1/146 diskspace when we kick anon
namespaces out. But the direction is clear...
That would be very fine with me but Lars would be displeased I guess...
Using the static keyboa
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So anybody who remembers the reasons to use the anon namespace (for
> _functions_)? [Rhetorical question...]
I seem to remember that Lars told us that it was "a good thing" (TM). However,
before anyone indulges in a "let's bash Lars bit of nostalgia", h
Given that yonder longish list of Things That Go Wrong In LyX is hard to
keep in mind while aging I thought I might share this little gem with
you.
Bad news from the ivory tower part II (Anon namespace vs 'static'):
Compare
namespace { int fooX() { return X; } }
with
static int fooX() { r
22 matches
Mail list logo
