Re: [boost] [xint] Third release is ready, requesting preliminary review

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Third release is ready, requesting preliminary review
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-05 15:12:17

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/05/2010 11:01 AM, Stewart, Robert wrote:

>> It's quite minuscule. I'm no CPU hardware expert, but my educated
>> guess would be two additional clock cycles per comparison at most.
>> I'll take that cost over the cost of duplicating the logic in
>> multiple functions, especially as it's not trivial.
> 
> I wasn't referring to the comparisons in the operator functions,
> but rather to the logic in compare() that must produce one of three
> results; I can't tell if we're talking about the same thing.

That's what I was talking about too, and why I estimated that it added
two clock cycles, instead of the single one that is all the comparison
alone would warrant.

> When implementing the operators directly, there are shortcuts in the
> logic you can't take in compare(): [...]

I appreciate that, but I don't consider the extremely small time savings
to be worth the duplication of code, with all the costs that entails,
such as the increased chance that a change that should go in both would
only make it into one of them, and the extra tests required to ensure
full coverage.
- -- 
Chad Nelson
Oak Circle Software, Inc.
*
*
*
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkvhww0ACgkQp9x9jeZ9/wQBsQCgwqYpkMvaylVeuwAr6dc2BeWG
uo8An2qml14Kav/sYNlkWnZQJMV0nyKz
=MD/p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----