I call premature opt... espeically for a compiler.. :-)
Just bench marked a delegate call vs an interface call (ms)
Interface: 28
Delegate: 25
Heap Delegate: 25
Heap Delegate lambda: 31
Just in case it was doing something special with local declared delegate i
forced it to be in a heap option .
So stack delgate call was faster than interface and lambda not much slower
. DId not test on mono but its probably horrible, if anyone has it up i
would appreciate what bench mark you get ..
However if you create a delegate for each case then its obviously much
slower.
Anyway its pretty damn good and the difference is not worth altering a
design decision.
Ben
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleApplication2
{
public class A
{
public Func<int, int> del ;
}
interface IFoo
{
int Foo(int x);
}
class Program : IFoo
{
const int Iterations = 10000000;
public int Foo(int x)
{
return x * 3;
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var heap = new A();
var heap_lambda = new A();
int x = 3;
IFoo ifoo = new Program();
Func<int, int> del = ifoo.Foo;
heap.del = ifoo.Foo;
heap_lambda .del = y => y * 3;
// force compile
ifoo.Foo(3);
del(3);
heap.del(3);
heap_lambda.del(3);
Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (int i = 0; i < Iterations; i++)
{
x = ifoo.Foo(x);
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Interface: {0}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds);
x = 3;
sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (int i = 0; i < Iterations; i++)
{
x = del(x);
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Delegate: {0}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds);
x = 3;
sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (int i = 0; i < Iterations; i++)
{
x = heap.del(x);
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Heap Delegate: {0}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds);
x = 3;
sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (int i = 0; i < Iterations; i++)
{
x = heap_lambda.del(x);
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Heap Delegate lambda: {0}",
sw.ElapsedMilliseconds);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
}
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 27, 2013, David Jeske wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Bennie Kloosteman <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> Hard to say without seeing more of the code ， cant the unwind code be a
>>> method / Func delegate you pass in if its common code ? you can also use a
>>> helper something like
>>>
>>
>> I'm with Bennie here. Is there some reason this boilerplate is not
>> abstractable into a separate function?
>>
>
> Only the fact that delegate performance in CLR is horrible.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitc-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
bitc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
