Related articles |
---|
[7 earlier articles] |
Re: Optimizing empty functions in C wasowski@data.pl (Andrzej Wasowski) (2002-06-20) |
Re: Optimizing empty functions in C wasowski@data.pl (Andrzej Wasowski) (2002-06-20) |
Re: Optimizing empty functions in C mlacey@microsoft.com (Mark Lacey \[MSFT\]) (2002-06-20) |
Re: Optimizing empty functions in C dnovillo@redhat.com (Diego Novillo) (2002-06-28) |
Re: Optimizing empty functions in C snicol@apk.net (Scott Nicol) (2002-06-28) |
Re: Optimizing empty functions in C haberg@matematik.su.se (Hans Aberg) (2002-06-28) |
Re: Optimizing empty functions in C ralph@inputplus.co.uk (Ralph Corderoy) (2002-06-28) |
Re: Optimizing empty functions in C iddw@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen) (2002-06-28) |
Re: Optimizing empty functions in C Peter-Lawrence.Montgomery@cwi.nl (Peter L. Montgomery) (2002-06-28) |
From: | "Ralph Corderoy" <ralph@inputplus.co.uk> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 28 Jun 2002 18:08:35 -0400 |
Organization: | InputPlus Ltd. |
References: | 02-06-025 |
Keywords: | C, optimize |
Posted-Date: | 28 Jun 2002 18:08:34 EDT |
Originator: | ralph@inputplus.co.uk (Ralph Corderoy) |
Hi Andrzej,
> [ about optimizing lots of empty functions ]
Rather than answers your questions, I'll make a suggestion based on
what it sounds like is causing you to ask these questions.
Instead of creating foo0() to foo100(), many of which are just
`return', and pairing them up with non_empty_foo42 flags, consider
void (*foo[101])(void);
i.e., foo is an array of 101 pointers to functions taking no parameters
and returning nothing.
You can then point multiple elements of foo[] to the same function
definition, and can either treat a null pointer as `the function
doesn't exist because it does nothing', or not use null pointers and
just have your foo_empty() function as before.
Cheers,
Ralph.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.