kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[John Beard <john.j.beard@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/05/14 20:44, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 05/08/2014 02:18 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> On 05/08/2014 01:31 PM, John Beard wrote:
>>> On 08/05/14 15:53, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> Submit a patch.
>>
>> Hope it gets accepted.
> 
> Since your interest is limited to the *.kicad_mod file.  You can use the mentioned DOM
> parser in your rewrite of the KICAD_PLUGIN::Footprint*() functions.

My interest is not limited solely to .kicad_mod formats, they are just a
convenient starting place with more immediate use cases for extended
data, particularly since there is useful Python integration, which would
be a natural place to use data not handled by the KiCad core.

I'm not presuming to rewrite anything significant.

> Please include comparative benchmarks with your patch submission.  If there's no
> appreciable performance hit, then you have a chance getting the patch accepted.
> 

Of course. Is there existing infrastructure for benchmarking, for
example any used when designing the current parser? I see a
container_test.cpp in tools with some timing code, but no other
significant usage of GetRunningMicroSecs(). I also see
USE_INSTRUMENTATION in pcbnew/files.cpp, but that seems to be the only
use, and is not really useful for me, as I don't want to test my
network/disk/cache IO, and the setup code, I only care about the parser.

John