[Opensim-dev] Upcoming work on alternative client stack

[Melanie]

Not really. Two memory accesses to retrieve 2 values packed into one 
byte are 2 accesses. in C#, C++, unsafe blocks or even assembly. 
They remain inefficient.

Melanie


Kyle Hamilton wrote:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> 
>