From: cannam <ca...@al...> - 2002-08-01 09:41:45
|
Richard Bown <bo...@bo...> writes: > Guillaume Laurent wrote: > > > > Are you telling me the compiler can't work this out? > > Actually I don't know :-). I suppose it could, but I don't know for sure. > > I'd imagine it'd be a pretty stupid compiler if it couldn't. I was also about to accuse Guillaume of spreading pernicious lies (and being a socialist as well, no doubt), but then I thought perhaps it wasn't as certain as all that. If you're incrementing something simple like an int then obviously yeah, but if "i++" and "++i" actually call quite separate non-inline methods on a relatively complex class (I have no idea how complex the iterators for multimap and the like are, probably not very but let's maintain the fiction for rhetorical ends) and one of them just happens to create a spare copy of the iterator to return, it's not _so_ obvious that the compiler would always be clever enough to optimise it out. Meanwhile, I don't suppose my tiny change to Segment:: isBeforeEndMarker made any different to inserting pitch-bend and other zero-duration events? And does your insert recorded midi function add rests, or is that done in a single call to normalizeRests in the insert recorded midi command at the end? Chris |