Efficiency in struct

[Malhorne]

Okay this thread is mad efficiency so if you're not on this don't say pointless optimization.

I'll show first the fact.

scope Test
    struct a extends array
        unit u
    endstruct
endscope

Outputs this

//JASSHelper struct globals:
constant integer si__a=1
unit array s__a_u

So for normal structs (outside the extends array I just want the variables), the name is like this : s__nameofstruct__nameofmember

scope Test
    private struct a extends array
        unit u
    endstruct
endscope

Outputs this

//JASSHelper struct globals:
constant integer si__Test___a=1
unit array s__Test___a_u

So for private structs the name is like this : s__nameofscope___nameofstruct_nameofmember

scope Test
    struct a extends array
        private unit u
    endstruct
endscope

Outputs this

//JASSHelper struct globals:
constant integer si__a=1
unit array s__a_u

Exactly the same as non_privated struct :O !!!!

And now for the last.

scope Test
    private struct a extends array
        private unit u
    endstruct
endscope

Outputs this

//JASSHelper struct globals:
constant integer si__Test___a=1
unit array s__Test___a_u

Exactly the same as just privated struct !




SO to sum up this :
- normal struct name : s__nameofstruct__nameofmember
- private struct name : s__nameofscope___nameofstruct_nameofmember
- normal struct private member : s__nameofstruct__nameofmember
- private struct private member : s__nameofscope___nameofstruct_nameofmember

Would this mean that using non-private struct and using everything private inside is faster ?
What do you think of it ?

 

[edo494]

if you so care about efficiency, run it through optimizer that will reduce it far beyond what you can achieve with this(1, 2 or 3 characters long function names and variable names)

but imo, you should use what fits more, if you want to have struct that is invisible outside of scope, use private struct with normal member data(you wont abuse your own code will you), if you have struct that any scope can see(public one), and you dont want certain variables to be overwriten by users, mark them private

 

[muzzel]

if you so care about efficiency, run it through optimizer that will reduce it far beyond what you can achieve with this(1, 2 or 3 characters long function names and variable names)

but imo, you should use what fits more, if you want to have struct that is invisible outside of scope, use private struct with normal member data(you wont abuse your own code will you), if you have struct that any scope can see(public one), and you dont want certain variables to be overwriten by users, mark them private

this.

public/private modifiers are only for compiletime checks, so yea they compile to the same code (vanilla jass doesnt know public/private).

 

[Malhorne]

I didn't want to create a debate on how to use private/public ^^'
I know pretty well how all of this is working xD

But I found this pretty funny that private members do not have more letters than normal members and I though that can be cool to share.

I know about optimizer I was sure that someone would tell me this ^^

 

[edo494]

well, I wont admit this is interesting, because most of the stuff that is marked with private adds more characters to the name, so one would think that private members would too

 

[Malhorne]

Yes but private members don't have more letters !
That's the interesting thing

 

[TriggerHappy]

Yeah, run it through the optimizer don't worry about silly shit like this.

It's only microseconds slower and regardless of what you do with your structs, running your map through the optimizer will have the best performance impact.