[Opensim-dev] Upcoming work on alternative client stack

[Kyle Hamilton]

Could the unpackers be implemented more efficiently if they could run
in unsafe blocks?

-Kyle H

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Melanie <melanie at t-data.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> specific types, as we have now. What is it you don't like about what
> we have now? With the framework we have to work with (C#) the
> current implementation seems the best one we can get.
> I have already shown in chat how unpackers lose efficiency with LL's
> weird bitpacked data fields. This would show less performance, not
> more. So I wonder what the point is?
>
> Melanie
>
>
> Mike Mazur wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:49:51 +0100
>> Melanie <melanie at t-data.com> wrote:
>>
>>> if the packets are structs/arrays, be careful of boxing issues. You
>>> would have no advantage from that if you have to eat the boxing
>>> overhead instead.
>>
>> Hm, that's a good point. I guess since Packet is a descendant of
>> object, no performance hit occurs.
>>
>> What would be a good way to get around this?
>>
>> Mike
>> _______________________________________________
>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>