Ahhh. The current build aligns on a 4 byte boundary. So, what you're saying is, adding one boolean could actually increase in-memory class size with 4 bytes ? Wow ...
-- Henkk ;-) BTW, a naked System.Object instance seems to take 32 bytes. A user defined class with one Int32, takes 36 bytes. Adding 1 bool to that will take 40 bytes. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Valery Pryamikov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [DOTNET] lock - how expensive is it to call? > Not necessarily ;-). > Memory allocators usually align memory block to the integer boundary > (and even to 64 bites boundary), so adding one byte could be not > essential for the memory consumption (depending on the object layout and > size). > > -Valery. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Henk de Koning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:47 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [DOTNET] lock - how expensive is it to call? > > Whereas your solution would increase object size for each and every > instance > ... > > Now I'm pushing it, I now ;-);-) > > -- Henkk > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Valery Pryamikov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:34 PM > Subject: Re: [DOTNET] lock - how expensive is it to call? > > > > You right here:-). > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Henk de Koning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:37 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [DOTNET] lock - how expensive is it to call? > > > > Would be expensive for exactly one call (out of 300.000). > > > > -- Henkk ;-) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Valery Pryamikov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:29 PM > > Subject: Re: [DOTNET] lock - how expensive is it to call? > > > > > > > Your latest code should work, of course, but using second lock would > > be > > > quite an expensive addition... And you only need a memory write > > barrier > > > between <init stuff> and bNeedInit = false. Using two different > > > fNeedInit+fNeedInitInt fields is more efficient solution for lazy > init > > > problem (you already have mem.barrier during lock release). > > > > > > Cheers, > > > -Valery. > > You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or > subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com. > You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.
