Subj : Re: Win98 error
To   : borland.public.cpp.borlandcpp
From : Bob Gonder <notbg@notmindspring.invalid>
Date : Sun Mar 14 2004 05:15 pm

Thomas Maeder [TeamB] wrote:

>I have the feeling that you tend to do premature optimizations.

Not sure what's premature about using your accumulated experience when
coding instead of writing slopy stuff and relying on a profiler to
tell you what the worst of it is, or the compiler to make it go away.

If I understand "premature optimization", it's going through the code
and saving a picosecond in code that's executed once.  I agree that's
not worth it, but... If you _consitantly_ write in an optimum manner,
you lose little coding time, and your overall code will be
faster/smaller.  Unless I come up with a new algorythm, I don't go
back and hand-optimize or profile my code (because it was optimized
from the start).  And, I dislike waste, even if it is only executed
once. (Probably a hold-over from the old-days of tight core).

>?live16387@32: ; EAX = ByteB
>        cmp al,27

>16bit compares are performed in all three cases. This is with 32bit ints; the

Uh, hate to tell you this, but....  al is 8 bits.

>> I've been very carefull to never place ints in structs.
>> That's good, right?
>
>As a general rule, I don't agree. If you have a compelling reason for doing
>this in particular struct types, then it's certainly good (by definition of
>"compelling"). Do you have such a reason?

"compelling" is that the structs will break when compiled on different
platforms.  Though I see your point, that if the structs are "only"
internal, self-use, non-persistant, you could get away with ints.
Once again, I err on the side of caution, as I see no good reason _to_
use ints in strucs.

.