Bruce Markham wrote: > On Feb 3, 2008 10:14 PM, TraumaPony <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > With regard to: > "Another miscellaneous food for thought is pointer usage. If you > are writing code against the architecture, or against memory, that > requires the representation of a memory address: we need to stop > using 'uint' just because we are assuming we are working on 32-bit > x86. " void* " exists for a reason..." > What about IntPtr? > > > > Virtually the same thing - but I'm sure there is a performance > overhead for using it, equivalent to boxing and unboxing. DarxKies > would have to clarify / correct me on that one though. They are pretty much the same. IntPtr is actually just a struct with a void* field. void* might be faster when AOTing but with IntPtr/UIntPtr you have all the methods and properties you might need. Both can be boxed and so on.
Chriss. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ SharpOS-Developers mailing list SharpOS-Developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sharpos-developers
