> On May 13, 2019, at 7:17 AM, Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> wrote:
>
> 2) Your option 2 seems to involve two things at once:
>
> - migration to lwp_specificadata
> - using DEBUG instead of DIAGNOSTIC to control the leak check feature
>
> I do not understand why changing the nature of the implementation is
> linked to how it is enabled.
I think Ozaki-san saying that the 3% performance hit only happens when
lwp_specificdata is used, and hence that it would need to be wrapped in DEBUG
rather than DIAGNOSTIC.
The original negligible-impact implementation did NOT use lwp_specificdata, and
thus was fine for DIAGNOSTIC. I believe Ozaki-san's preference is to use
*this* implementation so that it can be exposed to a wider audience. The
lwp_specificdata approach was only explored after someone else suggested a
preference for it.
At least, that's my understanding of the situation.
Now, choose wisely :-)
-- thorpej
