|
Marco Bertschi wrote: It is Qt code, where objects can be initialized by just writing "ObjectType variablename; ".
Interesting, to say the least. What would you do in Qt if you wanted an uninitialised variable declaration?
Cheers!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
Not initialized variables are bad!
Nevertheless, go for MyType myObject = 0; .
Initialize to 0 because the MS C++ compiler may get a little hiccup if you try it with NULL - Even though it is theoretically valid, MS uses another value which is != 0 for the debug versions to avoid the use of unintilized variables - This behavior may lead to system crashes in the debug version, therefore my first statement.
Veni, vidi, caecus
|
|
|
|
|
Marco Bertschi wrote: Not initialized variables are bad!
I'm an engineer, trust me, I know what I'm adfsadfasdfdfffffffffffffffffffffüllächt!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
Why didn't you use RAII?
class MutexLocker {
QMutex &m;
public:
MutexLocker(QMutex &qm) : m(qm) { m.lock(); }
~MutexLocker() { m.unlock(); }
};
int GetStatus(){
MutexLocker tmp(statusMutex);
return status;
}
Pablo.
"Accident: An inevitable occurrence due to the action of immutable natural laws." (Ambrose Bierce, circa 1899).
"You are to act in the light of experience as guided by intelligence" (Rex Stout, "In the Best Families", 1950).
|
|
|
|
|
Manfred R. Bihy wrote: The compiler should issue a warning or unreachable code. Did it?
Is that what I just ignored...

|
|
|
|
|
"worst code you'll ever see is the one you wrote last year"
|
|
|
|
|
Haha - I have the same t-shirt. I earned it late one night trying to debug a release build problem. Had wrapped important code with #ifdef DEBUG..
Charlie Gilley
<italic>You're going to tell me what I want to know, or I'm going to beat you to death in your own house.
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
if (item.Substring(0, 3).ToLower() != "PF_")
[Head hangs in shame]
I should have coded:
if (item.Substring(0, 3).ToLower() != "PF_".ToLower())
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: I should have coded:
if (item.Substring(0, 3).ToLower() != "PF_".ToLower())
I hope that's a good example of sarcasm!
if (string.Compare(item, 0, "PF_", 0, 3, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) != 0)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it's self satire... honestly...
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
If we're going for doing it right of course the answer is
if(item.StartsWith("PF_", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) ...
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if you will insist on writing code that other people can understand and maintain...
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry I meant
if(1600548864 == (*(int*)&item.ToLower()) << 8) ...
|
|
|
|
|
That's better!
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Nasty! Unsafe code...
Please, try to avoid it, especially when it can be done without it so much more clearly:
if (((BitConverter.ToInt32(Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(item), 0) & 6250335) ^ 6243920) == 0)
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly a functional language will magically make this far better:
((xum 567 487) (map item (lambda x (find (xor x (and y z)) (encode pi 49)))
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
I hold an A-7 computer expert classification, Commodore. I'm well acquainted with Dr. Daystrom's theories and discoveries. The basic design of all our ship's computers are JavaScript.
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote:
((xum 567 487) (map item (lambda x (find (xor x (and y z)) (encode pi 49)))
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
Man! Javascript has changed!
|
|
|
|
|
if(String.Equals(string1, string2, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))
{
...
}
is faster than string.Compare
Please kill me now or erase any information about c# from my head.
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
|
|
|
|
|
Are you sure? They both use a virtually identical approach behind the scenes.
And since the original code is only comparing the first three characters of the item string, you'd have to use Substring to create a new string before you could call Equals , which would almost certainly be slower.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Yes!
string string1 = File.ReadAllText(@"D:\Temp\MyText.txt");
string string2 = File.ReadAllText(@"D:\Temp\MyText.txt");
int x = 0;
Stopwatch sw1 = new Stopwatch();
sw1.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
if (String.Equals(string1, string2, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))
{
x++;
}
}
sw1.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(x);
x = 0;
Stopwatch sw2 = new Stopwatch();
sw2.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
if (String.Compare(string1, string2, true) == 0)
{
x++;
}
}
sw2.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(x);
Console.WriteLine("{0}:{1}", sw1.ElapsedMilliseconds, sw2.ElapsedMilliseconds);
(The file is one of my standard test files: 1.6MB of Ipsum Lorem paragraphs)
Results:
1000
1000
1716:4071
|
|
|
|
|
That's strange - on my computer, with a similar sized text file, Compare(string, string, bool) is consistently faster:
1000
1000
13997:3431
I'm running .NET 4.5.1 on Win7 x64.
Also, string.Compare(s1, s2, true) isn't the same as string.Equals(s1, s2, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) ; it's equivalent to StringComparison.CurrentCultureIgnoreCase . Try using string.Compare(s1, s2, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) instead.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting: I'm also Win7/64, but .NET 4.0 rather than 4.5.
Adding OrdinalIgnoreCase:
string string1 = File.ReadAllText(@"D:\Temp\MyText.txt");
string string2 = File.ReadAllText(@"D:\Temp\MyText.txt");
int x = 0;
Stopwatch sw1 = new Stopwatch();
sw1.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
if (String.Equals(string1, string2, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))
{
x++;
}
}
sw1.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(x);
x = 0;
Stopwatch sw2 = new Stopwatch();
sw2.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
if (String.Compare(string1, string2, true) == 0)
{
x++;
}
}
sw2.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(x);
x = 0;
Stopwatch sw3 = new Stopwatch();
sw3.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
if (String.Compare(string1, string2, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) == 0)
{
x++;
}
}
sw3.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(x);
Console.WriteLine("{0}:{1}:{2}", sw1.ElapsedMilliseconds, sw2.ElapsedMilliseconds,sw3.ElapsedMilliseconds);
gives results similar to yours:
1000
1000
1000
1694:4087:1684 I'm surprised there is such a difference in performance between our machines: mine isn't anywhere near state of the art - more state of the ark! 
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, the mysteries of M$. Our life will be so empty and boring without them.
The same code (Sorry Griff i should pay you author rights)
the result was
1000
1000
1000
4359:2216:4383
.Net 4.5 Win 7/64
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
|
|
|
|
|
Out of interest, are you building for "Any CPU", "x64" or "x32"?
Mine is built "x32" because that's what the app I shoved the code in is built for.
|
|
|
|
|
The results i pasted was with "Any CPU"
x64
1000
1000
1000
5363:2199:5338
x86
1000
1000
1000
4530:2305:4519
Visual studio Premium 2012 version 11 with Update 3, Win7/64, .NET 4.5.50709 to be exact
Anyway i don't see how he gets ~14 seconds for String.Equals
P.S i should say i have problems with my hard at work. I am waiting for it to die. This also can affect the pasted data. I wonder what the results will be with reading from SSD
Note to myself : seconds comes after milliseconds not minutes. Stupid
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
modified 11-Dec-13 11:18am.
|
|
|
|