Bah! Something went wrong on that patch, looks like an EOL-style thing.
Better patch attached.
Let me know if it's good to commit.
Alan.
On 3/27/07, Alan McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was looking at the Queue code and i noticed that version wasn't
incremented when Queue.Clear() was
I was looking at the Queue code and i noticed that version wasn't
incremented when Queue.Clear() was called.
Here's a patch and NUnit test to show the problem.
Alan
Index: C:/programming/mcs/class/System/System.Collections.Generic/Queue.cs
Alan McGovern wrote:
> I was just looking at the bitarray code and i thought that instead
> of a lot of bitshifting and messing to retrieve individual bytes
> from int's it would be faster (and easier?) to use unsafe code and
> mess with individual bytes that way. This patch makes it about 20%
> f
I was just looking at the bitarray code and i thought that instead of a lot
of bitshifting and messing to retrieve individual bytes from int's it would
be faster (and easier?) to use unsafe code and mess with individual bytes
that way. This patch makes it about 20% faster to create a bit array fro
I was messing around with the BitArray class (patch to follow) when i
realised that it might be faster to use unsafe code to swap the bytes. So i
did a test or two and it turns out that for longs it's faster to use unsafe
code and copy bytes around.
This makes SwapLong ~20% faster (0.2x faster).
Hello!
> Whoops, attaching the right patch this time...
I love it!
We should go class-by-class and have Optimization-thons!
Miguel
___
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-l
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 02:14 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> We do not have plans of implementing the Ping method at this point. On
> Unix issuing Ping requires root privileges. For making this work, we
> would have to write a setuid program and launch it every time this call
> is made.
Couldn't
I applied the optimisation from Michael, and the speed increase is quite
substantial. The original code running with a 9,000 element array took about
030 ms to process. The new code with a 900,000 element array takes 210ms.
Attached is a new patch containing those changes.
All comments welcome o
You could always test with System.Data.SqlClient using
INTEGRATED SECURITY=SSPI provided that you connect to
SQL Server 2000 or 2005 on a real Windows NT/2000/2003
Domain and that SQL Server accepts mix-mode
authentication.
--- Atsushi Eno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> During WCF hacking
Hi,
Thats a brilliant idea. It'll be much faster than the current shifting.
I'll test it out now.
Thanks,
Alan.
On 3/26/07, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alan McGovern writes:
> I was just browsing through the List implementation and made a few
speed
> optimisations. I'm not sure
Has anyone had a chance to look at these? No rush, of course.
Thanks,
Kevin
On 3/18/07, Kevin Reay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've attached two patches relating to monodoc; one affecting the
> docbrowser, and the other affecting the monodoc engine.
>
> The first one (for the docbrow
On Monday 26 March 2007 09:35, Antonello Provenzano wrote:
> Some time ago (before MS release of the utility shipped with .NET
> framework) I wrote a complete application for pings: I could try
> adapting it, since I've never released it and this could be a good use
> for it.
I would really like t
Hi,
During WCF hacking I found that Mono.Security.Protocol.Ntlm looks
based on somewhat old analysis.
Currently the code does not look "version" aware. According to
http://davenport.sourceforge.net/ntlm.html , there seems three
ntlm versions and the message layout is diffrent for each version.
An
Alan McGovern writes:
> I was just browsing through the List implementation and made a few speed
> optimisations. I'm not sure if changing from foreach(blah) to for(int i=0; i<
> blah, i++) is ok or not, but it does offer a large speed increase. So let me
> know if that's ok or not.
>
> Optimised
Hi,
> > First, really sorry about posting this between two different mailing
> > lists, but it's an important problem!
> >
> > http://nodoid.homelinux.org/csharp/dl/ctrix.exe
>
> Could you publish the code somewhere so we can test and see what's
> wrong? It would also be good if you tried it with
Whoops, attaching the right patch this time...
Alan.
On 3/26/07, Alan McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Attached is a newer patch which removes the use of: "this." as it's
against the mono coding guidelines.
Alan.
On 3/26/07, Alan McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I was just browsing
Attached is a newer patch which removes the use of: "this." as it's against
the mono coding guidelines.
Alan.
On 3/26/07, Alan McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was just browsing through the List implementation and made a few
speed optimisations. I'm not sure if changing from foreach(blah)
I was just browsing through the List implementation and made a few speed
optimisations. I'm not sure if changing from foreach(blah) to for(int i=0;
i< blah, i++) is ok or not, but it does offer a large speed increase. So let
me know if that's ok or not.
Optimised Methods:
RemoveAll - from 0x up t
Ah, I see you posted a source snippet. Nevermind that part then :)
On 3/26/07, Andreia Gaita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/25/07, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > First, really sorry about posting this between two different mailing
> > lists, but it's an important problem!
> >
> > http://no
On 3/25/07, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First, really sorry about posting this between two different mailing
> lists, but it's an important problem!
>
> http://nodoid.homelinux.org/csharp/dl/ctrix.exe
Could you publish the code somewhere so we can test and see what's
wrong? It would also be
Hi,
I'm totally against the introduction of new mono-only C# keywords. Access to
mentioned function calls should, if really needed, be provided in the form
of a class residing in some mono namespace.
Best Regards,
Cetin Sert
- Original Message -
From: "Kornél Pál" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
>> Mono's String class has great managed memcpy and memset methods that
>> internal. cpblk and initblk opcodes map to these two methods when cannot
>> be
>> easily inlined. But I know no way to make a C# compiler emit either cpblk
>> or
>> initblk using my own pointer parameters.
>
> Which o
Hi,
I'm not sure where to post this, I want to know status of api which are
needed in my application, so I'm posting here.
I want to build a parental control in C#. I want to know which will be the
best approach for me ( from the point of api completion in mono).
Should I use browser based prot
Hi,
There was a guy who tried to use the method in the subject, so
I've created a cosmetic patch to implement it.
Atsushi Eno
Index: System.Web.UI/TemplateControl.cs
===
--- System.Web.UI/TemplateControl.cs(revision 74928)
+++ S
My friend,
I'm not in the MD development team, so I cannot tell you why are they
so 'in late' relatively to #D. Most of the problems should be related
to licensing (#D is under GPL or LGPL) and platform-specific issues
(like the debugger that still need to be implemented fully under
Mono): I belie
Hi,
i misunderstood too :-). Sorry for my stupid answer. Have a nice day
Radek
> Radek,
>
>> Lie? Do you have anything against SharpDevelop or is it some kind of
>> policy to attack people talking about SD?
>
> There has been a *huge* misunderstanding: I was speaking of #D in a
> good way, saying
Nah, what I've originally thought was the quite opposite, as I wrote
that it *does* support debugging and refactoring.
Atsushi Eno
Radek Polak wrote:
> Lie? Do you have anything against SharpDevelop or is it some kind of
> policy to attack people talking about SD?
>
> You should check http://ic
Radek,
> Lie? Do you have anything against SharpDevelop or is it some kind of
> policy to attack people talking about SD?
There has been a *huge* misunderstanding: I was speaking of #D in a
good way, saying it is "comparable" to VS.NET for most of the features
needed by developers, while Atsushi
Lie? Do you have anything against SharpDevelop or is it some kind of
policy to attack people talking about SD?
You should check http://icsharpcode.net/OpenSource/SD/Features.aspx for
more information.
Radek
> I strongly encourage you to not lie.
>
> SharpDevelop does support debugging and refac
29 matches
Mail list logo
