On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Dirk Hohndel <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 05:03:54PM -0200, Tomaz Canabrava wrote: > > > So I'm puzzled how often we are adding bookmark events and how that > > > affects performance... or is this really just a first of a series and > the > > > others are more performance relevant? > > > > First of a series. > > OK > > > > Dear C expert... I am curious. Why are you doing this with a struct > event > > > ** > > > instead of just a struct event *... you need the ** if you want to be > able > > > to modify the list in an elegant way, but all you do here is walk the > > > list, so this could drop one level of indirection... or am I missing > > > something? > > > > Copied from the code just above that one. > > But that code modified the list, right? > > > > And why add the curly braces, anyway? > > > > I was debugging and forgot to remove them. > > Tsktsktsk. So you added something because you forgot to remove it and > introduced whitespace damage that way... > > > > This could do something really bad if for some reason > > > internalEvent->time.seconds is negative, right? then entry[0].sec > (which > > > should always be 0) could already be bigger and we access element > entry[-1] > > > > Is that possible? > > Off the top of my head I'd say "unlikely", but I worry about dives > imported from other sources or something else that could break this > assumption. So I'd rather have you test for i > 0 before you access > entry[i - 1] > > > > So this is pretty invasive and the patch has a few issues. > > > > > > Why should this go in before 4.3? Is there a specific bug this > addresses? > > > > > > > I was trying to find out why when moving a node for a few seconds while > > adding a new dive used 100% of the CPU in release mode. turned out it was > > because of too many replots that used the *very* expensive calls to > > PainterPath. > > while I was trying to fix that I got carried away. > > I hear that happens. So does this mean "I'll rework this for until after > 4.3" or "I'll rework this to address the issues mentioned and then submit > the series that fixes the bigger problem later today"? >
After 4.3 I'll touch this again, you can forget this one. :) > > > I think I'll just > > generate the pixmap of the Glyphs and reuse them in the future for the > > PainterPath issue. > > Or that and we forget the patch? That seems wrong because the idea in the > patch seems correct. > > /D >
_______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
