I was referring to try only which in your example would in 99.99% be the only cost.
It doesn't mean I'm not confused :) Phil -----Original Message----- From: Thong (Tum) Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 11:10 AM To: 'Miguel de Icaza'; Philippe Lavoie Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Mono-list] Exceptions and error codes. > -----Original Message----- > From: Miguel de Icaza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, 26 March 2003 4:09 a.m. > To: Philippe Lavoie > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Mono-list] Exceptions and error codes. > > Hello, > > > I think the original point made was that unless you have profiling > > information to back up any claim that "this part of the software" will > > slow you down. Then use a mechanism which will make your code more > > maintainable. > > > > The example below clearly has performance issues. However if the > > function handle_number_argument below takes 100 ms to process, the 5 or > > 10 extra lines of assembly added by the try/catch becomes meaningless in > > terms of overall performance. You'd better spend your time improving > > that function then rewriting the parser of Int32. > > You are confused. > > Throwing and catching an exception is not 10 extra lines of assembly, it > is very very expensive, on the order of thousands of instructions. > I think Phil was referring to the try/catch. Throwing exceptions is expensive -- but only if they're actually thrown. ^Tum _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
