> On Jun 4, 2018, at 9:12 PM, Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org>
> wrote:
>
> All the rest of what you do remains exactly the same. Dynamic arrays do far
> less than what you seem to assume.
As noted the inclocked()/declocked() calls destroyed some performance sensitive
parts of my code while testing and I had a choice to try to figure out the FPC
or sources or just replace the dynamic arrays with my own memory management
(totally trivial anyways). The dynamic arrays where inside of a class which I
had to make anyways so I could extend the dynamic arrays to have append
operations and optionally not resize memory when removing elements (I don’t
know if dynamic arrays do that or not, who knows). I wish I kept the old
performance profiles so we could look at them again.
It’s so trivial to make a class wrapper around simple memory management like
arrays I felt like it was strange to use a hidden implementation that I
couldn’t control 100%. It feels like RTL kind of stuff.
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
