[htdig-dev] Re: Efficiency Improvement for String.cc

[Lachlan A. <lac...@ip...>]

Greetings Neal,

That is a very sensible change, but I have two questions.
First, in the change
=09-    if (s.length() > 0)
=09-      copy(s.Data, s.length(), s.length());
=09+    if (slen !=3D 0)
=09+      copy(s.Data, slen, slen);
was there a reason to replace the '>' by '!=3D'?  It is defensive=20
programming not to copy negative-length strings.

Second, do you know why  gprof  sees the calls to  length()  at all? =20
Shouldn't an  inline  function be optimised out?  If so, the=20
optimisation becomes removing a few pointer dereferences (which=20
should also be optimised out by a sensible compiler).  That said, I=20
agree that it is tidier not to rely on an optimising compiler.

Cheers,
Lachlan

On Saturday 01 February 2003 12:20, Neal Richter wrote:
> I've posted a patch to String.cc with some simple changes with make
> a huge difference in efficiency.
> Please take a look and tell me if you object to any change.
> I'll commit it next week if no one sees a problem.