|Think about Loose Coupling|
(jcwren) Re: Premature Optimization is the Root of All Evilby jcwren (Prior)
|on Jan 02, 2002 at 19:49 UTC||Need Help??|
I really have to go with chip on this one. I played around with optimization for about 1/2 an hour and found that nothing I could do affected the performance by more than 1% or so.
I did not have as much time as I would have liked to spend on it, so I did not run profiling tools on that section, nor look at the actual code generation. I focused on that small section because I have a lot of experience with C, and frequently have to do optimizations of that nature because of the microcontrollers I work with (microcontroller compilers typically produce far worse code than GCC, since GCC benefits from a wide developer base, and most microcontroller compilers are 1 to 5 person shops).
My other interest in speeding it up was a trade off with making it fewer lines. Those 12 or so lines just seemed nasty. If it can be reduced to fewer lines, it often becomes more maintainable. Given that, I have the following replacement:
Normally, Inline::C uses -O2 optimization, which is fairly agressive about fragments like that. It's smart enough to recognize that memcpy()s can be replaced with several instructions if the length to move reduces to a compile time constant.
One would question if the above is actually more maintainable, since the byte copy of new_date = date; is more indicative of what the operation is intending to do. If one is aiming for speed and readability, the new_date = date; relies more on the working knowledge of the compiler.
No matter what the case, this isn't really the area that needs work to speed this puppy up.