Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: your so called optimizations and why we don't like them

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:24:34AM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:

> > I've applied exactly this scheme to tile_manager_get_tile_num () in 
> > tile-manager.c and together with replacing the ongoing errorchecking
> > throughout the callees was able to save a whooping 480 bytes in object
> > size on PPC and got faster code while (IMHO) making the code clearer.
> 
> you also removed a good bunch of debugging code that might still be
> needed (Kelly is working on this code) and "unsignified" lots of
> integers, which is why I choose to revert the changes in this file in
> a whole. I do hope you will post the tile_manager_get_tile_num()
> part of your change to the list.

Please don't make any changes in any tile-related code without talking
to me first.  That code is touchy and even small, seemingly innocuous
modifications can wreak havoc that may be difficult to detect.  I am
in the process of ripping that code entirely to shreds, so you're
really rather wasting your time fiddling with it.  Most of it is
already subtantially rewritten; I would probably have committed it
over the weekend if it wasn't for my network access problems.

I realize I've been incommunicado for a few days (fuck you very much,
Excite@Home), but that's no excuse for not talking about changes
before committing.

Kelly

-- 
			 I love catnip mice.
		   It's why I chew their heads off.
		     They're good for breakfast.


[Index of Archives]     [Video For Linux]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]     [gtk]     [GIMP for Windows]     [KDE]     [GEGL]     [Gimp's Home]     [Gimp on GUI]     [Gimp on Windows]     [Steve's Art]

  Powered by Linux