Jonas Sicking wrote: > GCObject has an inlined empty constructor, and no destructor. > GCFinalizeableObject does have a virtual empty destructor. So the cost > is nothing. What does cost though is that allocation is now done through > MMgc functions that are probably slightly slower than simply malloc/free > is.
I believe this probably depends on how the threadsafety discussion works itself out. As I understand things how, malloc is very expensive because it's the system malloc and must be threadsafe. If MMgc doesn't have to lock around each malloc call, then I think it's very possible that it'll be as fast or faster than the system malloc. -- Blake Kaplan _______________________________________________ dev-tech-xpcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-xpcom
