On Tuesday, 3 March 2015 at 21:37:20 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 3/3/15 12:35 PM, Zach the Mystic wrote:
Isn't allocating and collecting a freelist also overhead?
No. I don't have time now for a proof of concept and it seems
everybody wants to hypothesize about code that doesn't exist
instead of writing code and then discussing it.
Okay.
The unoptimized lowerings would be:
{
auto tmp = myGlobal; // bump count
impureFun(myGlobal);
} // tmp destroyed, --count
{
auto tmp2 = c; // bump count
fun(c, c);
} // --count
The only addition is an optimization where the compiler elides
the
assignments and calls the add/release cycles directly.
Do you have something reviewable, or just your own past posts?
Just my own past posts. My suggestion is based on the compiler
doing all the work. I don't know how it could be tested without
hacking the compiler.
For the time being I want to move forward with DIP25 and
deferred freeing.
That's fine. I like DIP25. It's a start towards stronger safety
guarantees. While I'm pretty sure the runtime costs of my
proposal are lower than yours, they do require compiler hacking,
which means they can wait.
