If ARC is missing you need to call "free". No Critical section is involved
with that.
Incorrect the pointer on which you call free needs to be guarded.
Yep. But with ARC you force synchronization in occasions where it would
not be necessary without ref counting.
That is very questionable, usually ARC does it exactly in the places you
have to guard, and tends to do it cheaper (in terms of code and CPU usage).
With best regards,
Boian Mitov
-------------------------------------------------------
Mitov Software
www.mitov.com
-------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Schnell
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 12:42 AM
To: fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Suggestion: reference counted objects
On 09/25/2014 07:30 PM, Boian Mitov wrote:
Strongly disagree...
You can't deny it. Please read some technical docs about the cost of
interlocked operation in multicore systems.
As compare to the cost of other locking methods such as critical sections
that have to be implemented instead if the ARC is missing?
I don't see the point.
If ARC is missing you need to call "free". No Critical section is
involved with that.
Doing parallel processing without ARC is practically suicidal IMHO.
That might well be, but it does not deny the cost.
There is always cost for parallelization (Actually same when doing it with
humans - I know that as a CEO :-D )
Yep. But with ARC you force synchronization in occasions where it would
not be necessary without ref counting.
-Michael
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
