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
On 04/04/2009, at 1:48 AM, Dan McGee wrote: 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.