> On Apr 22, 2016, at 5:05 PM, Greg Parker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Apr 22, 2016, at 2:36 PM, Charles Srstka via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> One comment: >> >> "In the most common case where a developer does not provide a custom >> reference type, then the backing store is our existing NSData and >> NSMutableData implementations. This consolidates logic into one place and >> provides cheap bridging in many cases (see Bridging for more information).” >> >> Would it not be more efficient to bridge to the C-based CFData and >> CFMutableData implementations instead, to avoid the object overhead? > > Not necessarily. Foundation often has less overhead than CF nowadays.
That’s interesting; I hadn’t known that. What causes that? My understanding had always been that the NS and CF objects, being toll-free bridged to each other, shared the same default implementations, with the only difference being that the NS versions involved the overhead from objc_msgSend() as well as, in many cases, an autorelease. Charles
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
