[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [cp-patches] [Patch] support for direct buffers
From: |
Jeroen Frijters |
Subject: |
RE: [cp-patches] [Patch] support for direct buffers |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:25:17 +0100 |
Michael Koch wrote:
> Can you provide us with numbers that prove this ?
I could give some IKVM numbers, but I don't see how that would prove
anything. It's obviously highly VM specific.
Do you have any strong objection against using subclasses to distinguish
between writable and read-only buffers? The rational is pretty simple,
since we already pay for virtual method invocation, we might as well
make use of it to get rid of an additional test.
Regards,
Jeroen
- [cp-patches] [Patch] support for direct buffers, Michael Koch, 2004/11/18
- RE: [cp-patches] [Patch] support for direct buffers, Jeroen Frijters, 2004/11/18
- RE: [cp-patches] [Patch] support for direct buffers, Jeroen Frijters, 2004/11/18
- RE: [cp-patches] [Patch] support for direct buffers, Jeroen Frijters, 2004/11/18
- RE: [cp-patches] [Patch] support for direct buffers,
Jeroen Frijters <=
- RE: [cp-patches] [Patch] support for direct buffers, Jeroen Frijters, 2004/11/18
- RE: [cp-patches] [Patch] support for direct buffers, Jeroen Frijters, 2004/11/18
- RE: [cp-patches] [Patch] support for direct buffers, Jeroen Frijters, 2004/11/21