Export SkPath equality operator.

Export SkPath equality operator.

This change will allow external access to the SkPath equality operator.

BUG=none

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/skia/source/detail?r=5418

[wjmaclean, 2012-09-05 18:12:11]

I'd like to be able to use SkPath == externally. I suppose an alternative would
be to provide an API directly through the SkPath class, but this change seems
more natural ... let me know what you think.

[reed1, 2012-09-05 20:12:58]

Does this have any impact on our internal use of that? i.e. does this ever cause
the function to *not* get inlined where it used to? Just asking.

Seems fine, but diverting to Brian, who is currently working on paths...

[bsalomon, 2012-09-05 20:32:21]

On 2012/09/05 20:12:58, reed1 wrote:
> Does this have any impact on our internal use of that? i.e. does this ever
cause
> the function to *not* get inlined where it used to? Just asking.
> 
> Seems fine, but diverting to Brian, who is currently working on paths...

Other than Mike's q, it LGTM. My changes will affect the implementation of the
function it doesn't matter if it is exported or not to me.

[wjmaclean, 2012-09-05 20:52:52]

On 2012/09/05 20:12:58, reed1 wrote:
> Does this have any impact on our internal use of that? i.e. does this ever
cause
> the function to *not* get inlined where it used to? Just asking.
> 
> Seems fine, but diverting to Brian, who is currently working on paths...

That's a good question. I would assume all such usage is inside Skia, but I
don't know how to be certain of when it is and isn't inlined (this will depend
somewhat on build configurations I imagine). If the declaration prevents
inlining, we could always add a wrapper function that is exported, and the
wrapper would certainly be good enough for my needs.

[bsalomon, 2012-09-05 20:55:33]

On 2012/09/05 20:52:52, wjmaclean wrote:
> On 2012/09/05 20:12:58, reed1 wrote:
> > Does this have any impact on our internal use of that? i.e. does this ever
> cause
> > the function to *not* get inlined where it used to? Just asking.
> > 
> > Seems fine, but diverting to Brian, who is currently working on paths...
> 
> That's a good question. I would assume all such usage is inside Skia, but I
> don't know how to be certain of when it is and isn't inlined (this will depend
> somewhat on build configurations I imagine). If the declaration prevents
> inlining, we could always add a wrapper function that is exported, and the
> wrapper would certainly be good enough for my needs.

This doesn't directly address the question but it seems to suggest that it could
be auto-inlined internally:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/feffc7b5(v=vs.100).aspx

[wjmaclean, 2012-09-06 16:34:35]

On 2012/09/05 20:55:33, bsalomon wrote:
> On 2012/09/05 20:52:52, wjmaclean wrote:
> > On 2012/09/05 20:12:58, reed1 wrote:
> > > Does this have any impact on our internal use of that? i.e. does this ever
> > cause
> > > the function to *not* get inlined where it used to? Just asking.
> > > 
> > > Seems fine, but diverting to Brian, who is currently working on paths...
> > 
> > That's a good question. I would assume all such usage is inside Skia, but I
> > don't know how to be certain of when it is and isn't inlined (this will
depend
> > somewhat on build configurations I imagine). If the declaration prevents
> > inlining, we could always add a wrapper function that is exported, and the
> > wrapper would certainly be good enough for my needs.
> 
> This doesn't directly address the question but it seems to suggest that it
could
> be auto-inlined internally:
> 
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/feffc7b5%28v=vs.100%29.aspx

So, would it be better if I created a wrapper function and land it that way? Or
should I land it as is, and we can fall back to a wrapper if we see performance
regressions?

[bsalomon, 2012-09-06 17:10:43]

My impression is that it is low risk. We can check out the benchmark graphs
after it lands to see if performance was degraded.


On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:34 PM, <wjmaclean@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2012/09/05 20:55:33, bsalomon wrote:
>
>> On 2012/09/05 20:52:52, wjmaclean wrote:
>> > On 2012/09/05 20:12:58, reed1 wrote:
>> > > Does this have any impact on our internal use of that? i.e. does
>>
> this ever
>
>> > cause
>> > > the function to *not* get inlined where it used to? Just asking.
>> > >
>> > > Seems fine, but diverting to Brian, who is currently working on
>>
> paths...
>
>> >
>> > That's a good question. I would assume all such usage is inside
>>
> Skia, but I
>
>> > don't know how to be certain of when it is and isn't inlined (this
>>
> will depend
>
>> > somewhat on build configurations I imagine). If the declaration
>>
> prevents
>
>> > inlining, we could always add a wrapper function that is exported,
>>
> and the
>
>> > wrapper would certainly be good enough for my needs.
>>
>
>  This doesn't directly address the question but it seems to suggest
>>
> that it could
>
>> be auto-inlined internally:
>>
>
> 
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-**us/library/feffc7b5%28v=vs.**100%29.aspx<http:...
>>
>
> So, would it be better if I created a wrapper function and land it that
> way? Or should I land it as is, and we can fall back to a wrapper if we
> see performance regressions?
>
>
https://codereview.appspot.**com/6500079/<https://codereview.appspot.com/6500...
>

[wjmaclean, 2012-09-06 18:00:27]

On 2012/09/06 17:10:43, bsalomon wrote:
> My impression is that it is low risk. We can check out the benchmark graphs
> after it lands to see if performance was degraded.

SGTM