What's up anyway -

[Justin Johansson]

downs Wrote:

> Justin Johansson wrote:
> > - that the .sizeof a delegate is 8 bytes (on a 32-bit machine).
> > 
> > AFAIK, stack pushes are still more expensive than a pointer dereference in contemporary
> > CPU architectures.
> > 
> > Justin
> 
> - with this weird way of writing posts? The subject should tell us about the content, not your emotional state! :p

Re subject line: fair call, you are right.  Emotions aside, at least this time I got a response.

> 
> Also I have no idea what you mean. Should delegate _values_ be heap allocated?! That'd be insanity. Also, I'm fairly sure you're wrong. The stack is relatively likely to be in the CPU cache. A random pointer dereferencing .. isn't. Also, do you really want to heap even more work on the ailing GC?

I will be bold and say yes to off-stack allocation,
whether that be in the general heap or other (and probably other to avoid an "ailing CG").

When the tough gets going, the going have to get tough.
(Meaning to start thinking outside of the square.)