[ZNC-Users] [ znc-Patches-3149823 ] performance.pre.increment.efficiency

[SourceForge.net <no...@so...>]

Patches item #3149823, was opened at 2011-01-02 18:43
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by thevbm
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=672823&aid=3149823&group_id=115828

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: vBm (thevbm)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: performance.pre.increment.efficiency 

Initial Comment:
According to cppcheck[1] there is several places where it advices that znc should use pre-increment/decrement.
If you think that this is false positive and should not be changed, please tell me, so i can report that back to cppcheck in order to get that fixed.

[code]Pre-increment/decrement can be more efficient than post-increment/decrement. Post-increment/decrement usually involves keeping a copy of the previous value around and adds a little extra code.[/code]

In order to save your time i've made tiny patch that does exactly that.


[1] - https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck/tree/97f7a36e916ee860435ae8d61473d8e8d722afb6


----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: vBm (thevbm)
Date: 2011-01-02 19:35

Message:
Actual benchmark no, but...

i++ :
    * create a temporary copy of i
    * increment i
    * return the temporary copy
++i :
    * increment i
    * return i

I'd say that ++i is more efficient then i++.

http://syamsulhasran.blogspot.com/2008/12/c-pre-increment-v-post-increment.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Psychon (psychon)
Date: 2011-01-02 19:10

Message:
If this is supposed to improve performance, do you have any benchmarks that
proof this claim?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=672823&aid=3149823&group_id=115828