I'm not an expert... BUT.. I think I'm right.. If you're using C#, you can take advantage of boxing which takes a value type and implicitly turns it into a reference type. I dotn know the larger performance/memory implications of this, so the experts will surely give the best practices on this.
If you have the October MSDN Docs, you can see this URL about it ms-help://MS.MSDNQTR.2003OCT.1033/csref/html/vclrfboxingconversionpg.htm ________ "One thing is for certain, though, about me -- and the world has learned this -- when I say something, I mean it." - President George W. Bush "And now [Democrats] claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11. What a surprise." - Ann Coulter Vince --- AIM: pacelvi MSN: this email address Xbox: VinnyCHI > -----Original Message----- > From: Unmoderated discussion of advanced .NET topics. > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arlie Davis > Sent: Sunday, 16 May, 2004 13:51 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Large structures > > I have a few questions for the advanced CLR people here. I > haven't been able to find any satisfactory answers elsewhere. > > Consider value types / structures in CLR, and passing them as > arguments to methods. Does the MS CLR *always* copy the > entire structure onto the stack? > Or does it ever simply pass a pointer to the structure? > > I like value types. However, structures of any significant > size are just impractical, if they must always be copied. > For example, in managed DirectX, nearly all of the matrix > manipulation methods take "Matrix foo" as an argument, never > "ref Matrix foo". These matrices are 4x4 floats, which means > that 64 bytes must be copied for every single matrix that is > passed into a method. > > This seems like a big waste of time, compared to the same > thing in C++, where you would simply always pass a pointer to > the matrix. Does the CLR actually pass an entire Matrix on > the stack? Or just a pointer? > > It seems like it would be within the specification / > requirements of the CLR to allow a CLR implementation to do > this, if it realizes that the method never alters the > structure, only examines its fields. > > Any insight is appreciated. > > -- arlie > > =================================== > This list is hosted by DevelopMentor. http://www.develop.com > Some .NET courses you may be interested in: > > NEW! Guerrilla ASP.NET, 17 May 2004, in Los Angeles > http://www.develop.com/courses/gaspdotnetls > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at > http://discuss.develop.com > > =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com Some .NET courses you may be interested in: NEW! Guerrilla ASP.NET, 17 May 2004, in Los Angeles http://www.develop.com/courses/gaspdotnetls View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
