Am 24.07.2012 13:21, schrieb OBones:
Thomas Schatzl wrote:
This code is not thread safe at all. A thread switch after the while
loop and before the increment will not prevent progress on other
threads, so multiple threads can enter the "critical section".
Well, yes, even if under Windows it's r
Thomas Schatzl wrote:
This code is not thread safe at all. A thread switch after the while
loop and before the increment will not prevent progress on other
threads, so multiple threads can enter the "critical section".
Well, yes, even if under Windows it's rare that a thread is preempted
right i
HI,
On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 16:58 +0200, OBones wrote:
> Jonas Maebe wrote:
> > On 23 Jul 2012, at 10:58, OBones wrote:
> >
> >> leledumbo wrote:
> >>> I look at the generated code and in the direct one there's additional
> >>> overhead of decrementing the reference counter on each iteration.
> >> I
Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 23 Jul 2012, at 10:58, OBones wrote:
leledumbo wrote:
I look at the generated code and in the direct one there's additional
overhead of decrementing the reference counter on each iteration.
I see it too now (I forgot about the -a option).
I can understand why there is a
On 23 Jul 2012, at 10:58, OBones wrote:
> leledumbo wrote:
>> I look at the generated code and in the direct one there's additional
>> overhead of decrementing the reference counter on each iteration.
> I see it too now (I forgot about the -a option).
> I can understand why there is a call to the
leledumbo wrote:
That one I cannot answer, please summon Florian/Jonas/Marco/Michael/whoever
capable to answer
Would you happen to know the magical words/rhunes that I should use?
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lis
That one I cannot answer, please summon Florian/Jonas/Marco/Michael/whoever
capable to answer
--
View this message in context:
http://free-pascal-general.1045716.n5.nabble.com/UnicodeString-comparison-performance-tp5710405p5710423.html
Sent from the Free Pascal - General mailing list archive at
leledumbo wrote:
I look at the generated code and in the direct one there's additional
overhead of decrementing the reference counter on each iteration.
I see it too now (I forgot about the -a option).
I can understand why there is a call to the decrementer outside the loop
when using the varia
I look at the generated code and in the direct one there's additional
overhead of decrementing the reference counter on each iteration. Here's
what the core code looks like:
Direct:
leal -56(%ebp),%eax
call fpc_unicodestr_decr_ref
leal -56(%ebp),%eax
call P$TEST_$$_GETSOMESTRING$$UNICO
