Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

80466Re: [XP] Necessary comments?

Expand Messages
  • Ron Jeffries
    Oct 2, 2003
      On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 10:17:26 AM, Robert Blum wrote:

      >> For a fix, I'd consider renaming or aliasing appendChain (I suppose I
      >> couldn't wrap it, that would cost an entire method call oh god)

      > You're going to kill me for this.... appendChain is inlined code.
      > Because, yes, a method call is hideously expensive. (Compared to other
      > architectures, at least)

      I'm not troubled by inline code, if as you talk about below, it's generated
      by a macro or something so that I can edit it in one place and fix it in
      all, just like a method. We used to call those "open subroutines" I

      >> to something like stackSizeUnknownChain().

      > I like that. I'm tempted to roll it into a Macro (since the compiler
      > can't be trusted with inlining...), and that would be a nice name.

      > As a sidebar: Since I can't trust my compiler with inlining, and
      > there's a lot of nearly-duplicate code, I'm venturing deeper and deeper
      > into the lands of automated code generation. And I like what I'm seeing
      > - I can fully test-drive the generators, and any performance anxiety
      > for that code can be ignored.

      Yes, it can be a good thing to do. Sometimes I've gone too deep into the
      bag of tricks in doing things like that. Most of the payoff probably comes

      > I'm wondering if that is the path I've been looking for. I can be
      > cycle-counting-obsessed, and still write clear, decoupled, fully tested
      > code.

      Yep. Could be just the thing.

      >> Just musing ...

      > I appreciate you're taking the time.

      It's more fun than what I /should/ be doing ... ;->

      Ron Jeffries
      One test is worth a thousand expert opinions.
      -- Bill Nye (The Science Guy)
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic