Re: [Bug-gnubg] bitfields

[Jim Segrave]

On Mon 25 Nov 2002 (19:01 +0100), Jim Segrave wrote:
> This will seem dumb, but why do we save evalcontexts with moverecords?
> 
> Assuming (which may not be true) that there are relatively few
> different evalcontexts active during any run of gnubg, then you could
> replace storing the contexts with storing simply an index into a table
> of pointers to copies of the setups, which would make the storage
> requirements even smaller (and makes comparing setups and contexts
> even faster), for what that might be worth.

Umm - I just poked about in eval.c. Nevermind, it's already been well
addressed. 

-- 
Jim Segrave           address@hidden