Op Tue, 6 Nov 2007, schreef L:
> The funny thing I see is everyone recommending Pchars. Why not
> setlength/uniquestring? Still too slow?
Memory management, especially when you get reallocations, is expensive.
With case ansistrings can perform well. However, you do have to care, and
Pchars can always be faster.
> Several years/months ago, when I posted
> something on the mailing lists about how trying to defeat the compiler with
> reference counting basically leads to more work than just taking matters into
> your own hands with pchars.. it led to some heated arguments. For example
> some said that the compiler didn't need to use pchars and it was fast.. hmm
> I wonder if maybe there are some reference counting slowdowns in the
> compiler that slow it down a bit. Although I realize it uses shortstrings
> for a lot of stuff.
The compiler uses shortstrings internally, which are the fastest string
type. Pchars are between ansistrings and strings, but offer the least
comfort of all.
Daniël
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
