Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in a tweener library
From: Julien Jorge (julien.jorge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-15 07:30:45
Le Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:29:06 +0200,
Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte <mjklaim_at_[hidden]> a Ã©crit :
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Julien Jorge
> > For the performance, I don't think they should be inlined. First, I
> > have no measure to tell that there is a performance bottleneck in
> > the use of the ease functions. Then, the functions are passed as an
> > argument to the constructor of single_tweener. I don't see how the
> > compiler could inline a function used this way.
> I don't know what you mean exactly, but i'm not a specialist either
> and I didn't benchmark anything.
> By the way, you suggest that the library would not be header-only? Or
> you don't mind if it is asked to be?
I don't mind if it is asked to be header only, and actually a template
implementation using the the vectorized approach suggested by Rhys
Ulerich seems interesting.
What I say however is that I do not see how the compiler can inline the
function f() in the following situation (that represents how the
ease functions are used):
inline double f( double )
void g( boost::function<double (double)>& func )
double t = /* â¦ */;
double d = func( t );
g( &f );
Since the address of f is used in the call to g, I suppose that the
compiler cannot inline the call in g.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk