Zulghinlour | Fri 17-Apr-09 12:34 AM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
9792 posts
| |
|
#24459, "RE: CF Performance"
|
>Nice. Any idea what the overhead is for the run-time >performance checks? Seems like something you'd eventually >want to disable once you clean up all the current problem >functions. Then just enable it periodically to see if any new >ones have started misbehaving.
Right now it seems negligible (set a clock_t before calling the function, set a clock_t after calling the function, subtract the clocks and compare against the goal, and report).
I'm actually inclined to leave them in if the overhead continues to prove to be minimal, because I'd rather have some checks in for new code that gets added without having to code review everything anyone checks in, and I'd be curious how some of these functions scale based on the number of players online. So long, and thanks for all the fish!
|
|
|
CF Performance
[View all] , Zulghinlour, Fri 17-Apr-09 12:17 AM
FYI:,
Daevryn,
24-Apr-09 01:27 PM, #10
RE: FYI:,
Isildur,
24-Apr-09 02:04 PM, #11
RE: FYI:,
Daevryn,
24-Apr-09 02:24 PM, #12
Mmmm...Thunderdome (n/t),
Zulghinlour,
24-Apr-09 02:46 PM, #13
What language would you use? /nt,
Rodriguez,
24-Apr-09 05:13 PM, #14
Probably C#,
Daevryn,
24-Apr-09 05:20 PM, #15
Dude,
N b M,
24-Apr-09 07:58 PM, #16
C (n/t),
Zulghinlour,
24-Apr-09 08:09 PM, #17
Two bits enter, one bit leaves! nt,
vargal,
25-Apr-09 05:06 AM, #18
I sort of posted about this several years ago.,
Dallevian,
18-Apr-09 12:05 PM, #9
Thanks Zulgh, definitely noticed the improvement. n/t.,
TheDude,
17-Apr-09 09:34 PM, #8
Another thought,
Dwoggurd,
17-Apr-09 04:25 AM, #4
RE: Another thought,
Zulghinlour,
17-Apr-09 12:43 PM, #5
Re,
Dwoggurd,
17-Apr-09 06:05 PM, #7
RE: CF Performance,
Isildur,
17-Apr-09 12:30 AM, #1
RE: CF Performance,
Zulghinlour,
17-Apr-09 12:34 AM #2
RE: CF Performance,
Asthiss,
17-Apr-09 01:53 AM, #3
RE: CF Performance,
Isildur,
17-Apr-09 12:44 PM, #6
| |
|