Re: [fpc-pascal] Freeing memory with exceptions
Benito van der Zander via fpc-pascal said on Wed, 24 May 2023 13:00:04 +0200 >I regret installing Linux. Everything worked better with Windows 98 >and Delphi 4 Why not just take your Win98 install disk, install win98, then take your Delphi 4 install disk, install Delphi 4, and you're all set. And you can recover the 39 bytes you lost to Linux. SteveT Steve Litt Autumn 2022 featured book: Thriving in Tough Times http://www.troubleshooters.com/bookstore/thrive.htm ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Freeing memory with exceptions
On Thu, 25 May 2023, Benito van der Zander via fpc-pascal wrote: Hi, That 99.99% of people does use it, indicates they simply take the overhead because of the advantages that the managed types offer. Or they simply do not know about the overhead If people don't know there is overhead, that means it is negligible or unimportant. So either way, all is well. Michael. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Freeing memory with exceptions
Hi, That 99.99% of people does use it, indicates they simply take the overhead because of the advantages that the managed types offer. Or they simply do not know about the overhead Like I was writing all my code on Windows 98, and never noticed any overhead, until I started running benchmarks on Linux. Bye, Benito On 25.05.23 07:58, Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal wrote: On Thu, 25 May 2023, Hairy Pixels via fpc-pascal wrote: On May 24, 2023, at 10:11 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote: You must have $H+ on and those are AnsiStrings? Why is there exception handling involved with AnsiString? I guess it needs this just in case an exception is thrown somewhere in the call stack? Because Ansi- and UnicodeString are managed types. *All* managed types managed string types, interfaces, Variants, managed records) must be finalized correctly even if an exception occurs. That's a problem with exceptions then, they are baked into the language and impose a cost on all managed types now even if we use them or not. Even disabling the implicit stack frames (forgot what it's called) doesn't get around this right? Why do you insist it is a problem ? Simply don't use managed types and don't use exceptions if you don't like the overhead they cause. It's still perfectly possible: avoid the sysutils unit and you're all set. The system unit does not use exceptions. That 99.99% of people does use it, indicates they simply take the overhead because of the advantages that the managed types offer. Which is not to say that FPC should not strive to minimize the overhead. Conceivably there is some gain possible on non-windows platforms. Michael. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Freeing memory with exceptions
Mattias Gaertner via fpc-pascal schrieb am Do., 25. Mai 2023, 08:23: > On Thu, 25 May 2023 07:55:39 +0200 > Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote: > > >[...] > > But this is what "managed type" *means*: that the compiler and RTL > > will make sure that it's correctly freed as long as nothing > > unexpected happens. > > ... and exceptions are expected. > Depends on the circumstances: in code with disabled implicit exception frames, but managed types exceptions are to be considered unexpected. But otherwise they are indeed expected. > Maybe better: As long as the user does not break the rules. > Agreed. Regards, Sven ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
