Lazy eval -- an example issue
kris
foo at bar.com
Thu Aug 24 08:07:52 PDT 2006
Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> kris wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:33:08 -0700, Paolo Invernizzi
>>> <arathorn at NOSPAM_fastwebnet.it> wrote:
>>> can you post us the performance difference you have noticed using
>>> the char[] version versus the delegate version?
>>
>>
>> As for performance differences, I suspect you're missing the bigger
>> picture, Paolo?
>
>
> I've followed the discussion.
>
> While I agree that ambiguities must be avoided if possible, and that
> compiler-made decision are sometimes frustrating (but we all are happy
> about class-all-virtual-methods!), I was just curious of the performance
> impact of such a change...
That's simple ~ time a trivial function by calling it several million
times. Now add a malloc(40) or thereabouts to the same function and time
it again. There's your performance hit. Note that multithreaded apps
will run afoul of mutex-contention also.
As for virtual methods; you can choose which are virtual and which are
not. Seriously though, virtual methods do not allocate from the heap
when they are called. Imagine if they did ...
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list