Hey Rodrigo, > Anyway, this would only make sense if freeing is something that happens > enough to > justify the extra work.
I don't think freeing would happen often enough. I'm actually more concerned about the impact of the write barrier I'd need for the hazard pointer, which would be used every time a slot is fetched from a RGCTX. > I was thinking more about collections. Do interfaces have a rgctx too? No. I'm not sure what I'd put into the RGCTX of an interface, anyway. What do you have in mind? > I expected that for F# sharing would have saved some overall time since JIT > activity is a lot smaller. I had hoped for that, too, but it's not there. Not that I'm terribly unhappy, though - I saw generic sharing as mainly a memory optimization. > By the way, talking about the F# case, generic sharing compiles 27% less > methods, but only reduces > the compiled code size by 6%. These numbers seen odd to me. Is generic code > really that > smaller than non-generic or is the added code for sharing support that > result on these numbers? I'll look into it in more detail, but it seems that generic methods are usually very short, more so than non-generic methods. And we do generate code that's a bit longer, but not by much. Mark _______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
