> > Talking about TList slowness:
> > In the last years TList and TStringList became slower and slower.
> > Are there any alternatives in classes.pp? A simple TList providing only
> > the very basics, less checks, no notifications, less virtuals, reordered
> > IFs ... ?
>
> TList has almost no virt
Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
I suspected that every type that needs to be initialized/finalized
creates such try...finally block,
Yes, it does.
but didn't have time to check. But I
checked it now. OK, page in wiki is changed, and demo program there is
changed.
__
Vincent Snijders wrote:
Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
Are there any other cases where this issue may be significant ? If no,
I'll mark this wiki page clearly as "only for FPC earlier than
2004-12-28" (to-be-removed when 2.0 comes in), else I will update it.
(Note: we can continue this talk on wiki
Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
Are there any other cases where this issue may be significant ? If no,
I'll mark this wiki page clearly as "only for FPC earlier than
2004-12-28" (to-be-removed when 2.0 comes in), else I will update it.
(Note: we can continue this talk on wiki page
http://www.freepasc
Vincent Snijders wrote:
Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
I felt that results of this discussion are so important that I created
a page in FPC wiki about it:
http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/Avoiding_implicit_try_finally_section
There's an URL to mail archives of this discussion, and a small d
Vincent Snijders wrote:
Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
I felt that results of this discussion are so important that I
created a page in FPC wiki about it:
http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/Avoiding_implicit_try_finally_section
There's an URL to mail archives of this discussion, and a small d
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:13:15 +0100 (W. Europe Standard Time)
> Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> >[...]
> > > And creates the implicit exception frame only in RaiseIndexError.
> >
> >
Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
I felt that results of this discussion are so important that I created a
page in FPC wiki about it:
http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/Avoiding_implicit_try_finally_section
There's an URL to mail archives of this discussion, and a small demo
program that shows
>
>Talking about TList slowness:
>In the last years TList and TStringList became slower and slower. Are there
>any alternatives in classes.pp? A simple TList providing only the very basics,
>less checks, no notifications, less virtuals, reordered IFs ... ?
I think dynamic arrays are just what y
I felt that results of this discussion are so important that I created a
page in FPC wiki about it:
http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/Avoiding_implicit_try_finally_section
There's an URL to mail archives of this discussion, and a small demo
program that shows trick proposed by Mattias how
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:13:15 +0100 (W. Europe Standard Time)
Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>[...]
> > And creates the implicit exception frame only in RaiseIndexError.
>
> I have changed the procedure.
Talking about TList slowness:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 11:49:10 +0100 (W. Europe Standard Time)
> Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:56:24 +0100 (W. Europe Standard Time)
> > > Mic
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 11:49:10 +0100 (W. Europe Standard Time)
Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:56:24 +0100 (W. Europe Standard Time)
> > Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > If the
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:56:24 +0100 (W. Europe Standard Time)
Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the answer is yes, then maybe it's safe to compile parts of FPC
sources in lists.inc (like TList.Get) inside {$IMP
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:56:24 +0100 (W. Europe Standard Time)
> Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > If the answer is yes, then maybe it's safe to compile parts of FPC
> > > sources in lists.inc (like TList.Get) inside {$IMPLICITEXC
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:56:24 +0100 (W. Europe Standard Time)
Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the answer is yes, then maybe it's safe to compile parts of FPC
> > sources in lists.inc (like TList.Get) inside {$IMPLICITEXCEPTIONS OFF} ?
Why not put it into a sub proc:
function
Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
Hi,
I tested your code and found that indeed version in ucopylist is
slightly faster (by about 9.5 / 7 =~ 1.357). Two things:
1. Speedup is only 1.357x, not 3x, like you said. Are you sure that
you're getting 3x speedup ? On what OS and with what FPC version are
you t
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
> Peter Vreman wrote:
> >>>This is because there is an extra (implicit) Try/Finally block.
> >>
> >>Thank you and Peter for answers. This way I was able to see how
> >>try...finally section looks in assembler :) Anyway, I understand that
> >>the an
Peter Vreman wrote:
This is because there is an extra (implicit) Try/Finally block.
Thank you and Peter for answers. This way I was able to see how
try...finally section looks in assembler :) Anyway, I understand that
the answer is "can't be speed up". OK, I can live with that.
That is not correct
>> This is because there is an extra (implicit) Try/Finally block.
>
> Thank you and Peter for answers. This way I was able to see how
> try...finally section looks in assembler :) Anyway, I understand that
> the answer is "can't be speed up". OK, I can live with that.
That is not correct. For you
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
Hi,
I tested your code and found that indeed version in ucopylist is
slightly faster (by about 9.5 / 7 =~ 1.357). Two things:
1. Speedup is only 1.357x, not 3x, like you said. Are you sure that
you're getting 3x speedup ? O
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tested your code and found that indeed version in ucopylist is
> slightly faster (by about 9.5 / 7 =~ 1.357). Two things:
>
> 1. Speedup is only 1.357x, not 3x, like you said. Are you sure that
> you're getting 3x speedup ? On what OS a
> I'm attaching a simple demo program that shows this. When compiled like
>fpc -OG -O2 -Op2 demo_resourcestring_slow.pas
> (to get maximum optimizations) sample output of it is
>Time of Foo_Normal: 16
>Time of Foo_ResourceString: 106
> So time difference is really noticeable. Qu
Hi,
I tested your code and found that indeed version in ucopylist is
slightly faster (by about 9.5 / 7 =~ 1.357). Two things:
1. Speedup is only 1.357x, not 3x, like you said. Are you sure that
you're getting 3x speedup ? On what OS and with what FPC version are you
testing this ? I was doing t
I've read a complaint about TList being slow so I decided to give it a test.
Quite frankly the test showed this is truth, but I couldn't find out why.
I found out that if I copy the TList from classes "as-is" into my unit
and use this
copy, it is about 3x faster in certain conditions. I have no id
25 matches
Mail list logo
