[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 62
From: |
Kim F. Storm |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 62 |
Date: |
12 Jul 2004 15:12:00 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:
> address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:
>
> > The array is _not_ initialized,
>
> It is, all current uses do that (they have to due to non-MARK_STACK
> architectures). And keeping it like this is a good idea anyway.
The way I read the code, the arrays are _not_ initialized.
And no, they don't have to be initialized due to non-MARK_STACK
architectures; the code that puts data into those arrays progressively
GCPROs only the initialized part of the array.
And IMO, it is not a good idea to waste cpu cycles initializing
(large) arrays that are subsequently filled with valid data.
But if you can show me the code that INITIALIZES those arrays, I will
believe you (and remove that code :-).
--
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk
- Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 62, Andreas Schwab, 2004/07/06
- Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 62, Kim F. Storm, 2004/07/12
- Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 62, Andreas Schwab, 2004/07/12
- Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 62, Kim F. Storm, 2004/07/12
- Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 62, Andreas Schwab, 2004/07/12
- Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 62,
Kim F. Storm <=
- Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 62, Andreas Schwab, 2004/07/12
- Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 62, Kim F. Storm, 2004/07/12
- Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 62, Andreas Schwab, 2004/07/12
- Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 62, Kim F. Storm, 2004/07/12