* Mattias Gaertner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Fri, 16 Nov 2007
11:44:26 +0100]:
Can you send me the debug log and tell me the file structure?
The --debug-out result is empty (i.e. namely the log file was not
created).
File with form ancestor (fetched from my combat project) has publised in
#10176
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:37:29 +0300
Andrey Gusev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Mattias Gaertner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Fri, 16 Nov 2007
00:29:26 +0100]:
Please give feedback in the bug tracker, what part of the bug is
still open.
How i can make give back the previous read units behaviour, with
On 16/11/2007, Michael Schnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reference counting needs some additional code that is executed without
writing additional instructions in the main line code. So it's no wonder
it costs some performance.
Yes that I understand and I'm not arguing the point. Well,
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:50:00 +0200
Graeme Geldenhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
* FPC 2.2.0 under Linux (Ubuntu 7.10)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:Demo$ ./performancetest
2029 iterations in 5 seconds (no reference counting)
3185 iterations in 5 seconds (reference counting)
2469 iterations in 5
* Why is our non-reference counted implementation faster
Reference counting needs some additional code that is executed without
writing additional instructions in the main line code. So it's no wonder
it costs some performance.
-Michael
___
On 16 Nov 2007, at 13:27, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
With all these tests, we have cleared up a few issues. One still
outstanding is why TInterfacedObject performs better that TObject
using FPC?
Probably something alignment-related which changes the cpu cache
behaviour.
Jonas
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
No idea?? They seem to fluctuate after each run, but the overall
result (which tests are faster) are always constant. Have a look at
the code, if there is a better way of testing this. The code is pretty
simple. Just loop and create 10,000 objects in each loop.
Your
On 16/11/2007, Mattias Gaertner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why are the iteration differences that big? 566 vs 935?
There seems to be a problem with how you test/measure.
No idea?? They seem to fluctuate after each run, but the overall
result (which tests are faster) are always constant. Have a
* Mattias Gaertner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Fri, 16 Nov 2007
00:29:26 +0100]:
Please give feedback in the bug tracker, what part of the bug is still
open.
How i can make give back the previous read units behaviour, with last
12893 revision ?
That to my logging patch will efficient.
Sample project,
* Andrey Gusev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:35:26 +0300]:
I can, sure, implement closing checking myself in my forms, but, i
sure,
ShowModal() is erroneous to call
Application.Idle() after form closing.
Or, probably, TApplicationProperties component implementation erroneous
- there
Hi,
We have implemented a BaseObject class in the tiOPF project that can
be reference counted or not. Based on the constructor used. What was
really strange was when we started doing tests to see how it would
affect our performance. Some of us using tiOPF have applications that
creates 10's of
TCustomForm.ShowModal() implementation have call to Application.Idle()
after closing form, for what ??
background: My some forms idle tasks have appeal to form's visual
components, so i got AV.
I use standart TApplicationProperties.OnIdle() event.
I can, sure, implement closing checking myself
* Andrey Gusev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:17:46 +0300]:
It seems somewhat pulled what was not included to paths...
But it is compile-able with IDE.
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
On 16/11/2007, Sergei Gorelkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your tests do not free the refcounted objects, but free the
non-refcounted ones. This probably explains why 'standard refcounting'
test is faster than 'standard non-refcounting'.
Valid point, so I did that. 2 out of 3 times
Zitat von Andrey Gusev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Some units cannot be found by IDE (in editor), as earlier.
--- (from message box)
C:\Works-FContr\Contracts\gen\gen2\WaybillG.pas(13,50) Error: unit not
found: darrInt
---
but, corresponding directory is correctly prescibed to both compiler and
IDE
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Any idea why Delphi in a virtualbox still beats FPC? Delphi seems
considerably faster and it's in a virtual machine. Oh, and I'm using
a stock standard single core Intel P4 CPU 2.40GHz and it hasn't got
any special virtualization features built in.
Also not, that
Thanks, I've seen that in the past but I was after a port of the
actual RDP client to save me reworking it completely unless someone
know's of a 'magic' tool to convert the C++ code to Pascal (or most of
it even) !
Quoting Michael Van Canneyt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There used to be a front
Some units cannot be found by IDE (in editor), as earlier.
--- (from message box)
C:\Works-FContr\Contracts\gen\gen2\WaybillG.pas(13,50) Error: unit not
found: darrInt
---
but, corresponding directory is correctly prescibed to both compiler and
IDE paths
(first and third boxes in compiler
* Mattias Gaertner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Fri, 16 Nov 2007
12:35:26 +0100]:
There is always some output. Are you sure, that you used the
--debug-log=C:\lazlog.txt parameter correctly?
Sorry, mistyped.
The log is attached.
Yes, but this example works here (linux,fpc 2.3.1) without errors
(except
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:34:03 +0300
Sergei Gorelkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
No idea?? They seem to fluctuate after each run, but the overall
result (which tests are faster) are always constant. Have a look at
the code, if there is a better way of testing this.
Op vrijdag 16-11-2007 om 10:14 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Alvise
Nicoletti:
However: no problem to downgrade a little, but didn't you said me
once
that to use sqldb on linux 64 bit I have to use at least 2.2 ?
The last time I was with an older version of fpc I had the could not
connect
On 05 Oct 2007, at 08:46, Jonas Maebe wrote:
Yes, see the mail below (that person's email address started bouncing
recently and he was automatically unsubscribed from the list because
of that though).
I was the person below, and I'd like to apologise, explain, and have a very
subdued rant.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:27:50 +0200
Graeme Geldenhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16/11/2007, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A single program like the below leaks memory. To the object be
freed automatically is necessary to declare Obj as IUnknown.
I wonder if your
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:17:46 +0300
Andrey Gusev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Mattias Gaertner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Fri, 16 Nov 2007
11:44:26 +0100]:
Can you send me the debug log and tell me the file structure?
The --debug-out result is empty (i.e. namely the log file was not
created).
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
procedure TMyApplication.TestRefCountedObjects;
var
LO: TInterfacedObject;
LStart: Cardinal;
LCount: Cardinal;
i: integer;
begin
LCount := 0;
LStart := tiGetTickCount;
while tiGetTickCount - LStart (CTestRunTime * 1000) do
begin
LO :=
25 matches
Mail list logo
