Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the URL shown below and enter your comments there.
Changed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugzilla.ximian.com/show_bug.cgi?id=80508 --- shadow/80508 2007-01-12 18:04:38.000000000 -0500 +++ shadow/80508.tmp.7984 2007-01-12 19:13:33.000000000 -0500 @@ -32,6 +32,24 @@ ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-12 18:04 ------- It is a bad change. Instead of filing a whishlist bug for the jit to optimize this case you cause bloat both in the assembly and in the runtime generated code, making the code unoptimizable. Your limit can cause 4-5 KB of generated code just to initialize an array. Please revert to more sane values, like 10 or 20 instead of 200. + +------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-12 19:13 ------- +Thank you for your comments. + +IIRC, this change was part of a bugfix about constant and non-constant +array initializers optimization. +I will try to do the performance testing again to see if the runtime +made any improvements but when I did this change InitializeArray was +significantly (5x?) slower. I agree, I should fill separate bug report +(but it usually takes very long time to close runtime performance bugs +:-( ) + +I understand that on other architectures you can get different results + so it probably makes better sense to optimize InitializeArray to be +architecture specific and set threshold lower to cover only cost of +managed->unmanaged transition. + + _______________________________________________ mono-bugs maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-bugs
