On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <[email protected]>wrote:
> Thanks for the hard data! This is very useful. > > The article about atomic reference counting is interesting but mostly > compares eager copy with atomic reference counting (I attach one of the > result files for convenience). We're also interested in the penalty exacted > by atomicity of reference counting when compared with unprotected reference > counting. I want to know that too. I intend to do some tests later this week if I have time. > (The trick of returning a smart proxy is clever but C++ specific.) If we cannot use that trick in D, then we need an alternative. Otherwise, COW is less attractive. > Also, if I understand things correctly, the article does not induce > contention; it only measures uncontended operations. > I think we can ignore the case of contention when more than one thread are modifying multiple instances sharing the same data. Such modifications inevitably lead to allocation of a copy in each contending thread, and creating the copies is a vastly more expensive operation than contended operations on the reference counter. Cases of contended copy-construction, assignment and destruction are more interesting. > > Anyhow, the analysis of the class constructors in Qt is extremely relevant. > Thanks again! > You are welcome. > Andrei > >
_______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
