I have just finished implementing this in aqpm and actually almost finished it thanks to this, so I'm freeing up resources to help you guys on this patch if needed. On Saturday 04 April 2009 07:18:35 Sebastian Nowicki wrote:
On 04/04/2009, at 1:48 AM, Dan McGee wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Sebastian Nowicki
<sebnow@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/03/2009, at 5:34 AM, Dan McGee wrote:
I'm assuming the below code didn't really change from what was in the backend- can you verify this, or point out what you did modify?
For the most part, yes. I did "inline" some functions, which were static. There might have been other minor changes.
Was this strictly necessary? I much prefer things being split out in functions as it is much easier to read. gcc will *always* optimize these back in if they are called as infrequently as they probably are (or in a tight loop), so don't try to outsmart the compiler.
There were two choices, inlining it like I did, or copying and pasting the functions. Since they were used only once (as far as I know), I chose manual inlining. The functions are static within the libalpm code, so I couldn't have simply called them, unfortunately. This wasn't an optimisation of any sort.
_______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
-- ------------------- Dario Freddi KDE Developer GPG Key Signature: 511A9A3B