Re: Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2014-05-05 Thread Raul Fernandes
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108992/ --- (Updated May 5, 2014, 10:54 p.m.) Status -- This change has been dis

Re: Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2014-01-11 Thread Albert Astals Cid
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108992/#review47199 --- Raul, can you please update the review to address Aaron's poin

Re: Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2013-04-08 Thread Aaron J. Seigo
> On April 5, 2013, 3:43 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > Aaron can you re-review to see if the requests you made are fixed and this > > is ready to go? no, it still needs to be changed to address the points raised - Aaron J. --- Th

Re: Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2013-04-05 Thread Albert Astals Cid
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108992/#review30464 --- Aaron can you re-review to see if the requests you made are fix

Re: Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2013-03-08 Thread Raul Fernandes
> On Feb. 22, 2013, 1:32 a.m., Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > plasma/widgets/signalplotter.cpp, line 230 > > > > > > no point in taking PODs out of the loop > > Raul Fernandes wrote: > Actually, the benefit exists

Re: Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2013-02-26 Thread Aaron J. Seigo
> On Feb. 22, 2013, 1:32 a.m., Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > plasma/widgets/signalplotter.cpp, line 230 > > > > > > no point in taking PODs out of the loop > > Raul Fernandes wrote: > Actually, the benefit exists

Re: Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2013-02-23 Thread Raul Fernandes
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108992/ --- (Updated Feb. 22, 2013, 7:17 p.m.) Review request for Plasma. Changes --

Re: Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2013-02-23 Thread Raul Fernandes
> On Feb. 22, 2013, 1:32 a.m., Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > plasma/widgets/signalplotter.cpp, line 230 > > > > > > no point in taking PODs out of the loop Actually, the benefit exists in PODs too (the compiler has t

Re: Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2013-02-23 Thread Raul Fernandes
> On Feb. 18, 2013, 1:39 a.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > > I don't see loosening the variables' scope as a codebase improvement. > > Mostly otherwise. > > > > Also I'd like to know how you measured this 5% of improvement, which either > > way I'm unsure if it's worth it considering that this

Re: Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2013-02-23 Thread Raul Fernandes
> On Feb. 18, 2013, 1:39 a.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > > I don't see loosening the variables' scope as a codebase improvement. > > Mostly otherwise. > > > > Also I'd like to know how you measured this 5% of improvement, which either > > way I'm unsure if it's worth it considering that this

Re: Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2013-02-23 Thread Aaron J. Seigo
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108992/#review27877 --- ints and other POD types do not need to be pulled from the loop

Re: Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2013-02-21 Thread Aaron J. Seigo
> On Feb. 18, 2013, 1:39 a.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > > I don't see loosening the variables' scope as a codebase improvement. > > Mostly otherwise. > > > > Also I'd like to know how you measured this 5% of improvement, which either > > way I'm unsure if it's worth it considering that this

Re: Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2013-02-21 Thread Sebastian Kügler
Hi, > On February 18th, 2013, 1:39 a.m. UTC, Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > > I don't see loosening the variables' scope as a codebase improvement. Mostly > otherwise. > > Also I'd like to know how you measured this 5% of improvement, which either > way I'm unsure if it's worth it considering that

Re: Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2013-02-20 Thread Raul Fernandes
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108992/#review27798 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Raul Fernandes On Feb. 17, 2013, 12:57

Re: Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2013-02-20 Thread Raul Fernandes
> On Feb. 18, 2013, 1:39 a.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > > I don't see loosening the variables' scope as a codebase improvement. > > Mostly otherwise. > > > > Also I'd like to know how you measured this 5% of improvement, which either > > way I'm unsure if it's worth it considering that this

Re: Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2013-02-20 Thread Marco Martin
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108992/#review27775 --- Ship it! as long their scope is still local to the function is

Re: Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2013-02-17 Thread Aleix Pol Gonzalez
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108992/#review27607 --- I don't see loosening the variables' scope as a codebase improv

Review Request 108992: Simple optimizations in SignalPlotter

2013-02-17 Thread Raul Fernandes
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108992/ --- Review request for Plasma. Description --- - create variables and cla