Re: gEDA-user: PCB Patches: Use c99 bool instead of manual typedef.

[Peter Clifton <pcjc2@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 17:51 +0100, Robert Spanton wrote:
> Yo,
> 
> I wrote:
> > Advantages:
> >       * Compiler is able to perform optimisations specific to the bool
> >         type.
> 
> ineiev wrote:
> > Yes, it is. I don't think the gain will be noticeable, though.
> > PCB data are mostly ints, and pointers, and floats, and doubles.
> 
> The point is that there's this patch sitting here that does it.  I've
> done the conversion work so no-one else has to.  No matter how small a
> performance increase it gives, it can be implemented quite cheaply now.

You forget all the development work which has not yet been merged, which
will now be presented with huge (and unnecessary) conflicts.

It is not cheap, nor easy due to the existing patch sets and branches
out there. (I'm the author of several large ones, so I would be affected
there).

If you had an automated script for performing the conversions, it might
mitigate that.

I'm not against de-crufting some of PCB's types (I'm personally not a
fan of the "foo" and "fooPtr" typedef idiom), but I'm less likely to
push for this kind of change than real substantive code improvements.

-- 
Peter Clifton

Electrical Engineering Division,
Engineering Department,
University of Cambridge,
9, JJ Thomson Avenue,
Cambridge
CB3 0FA

Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!)
Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me)



_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user