<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
If unsafe blocks are allowed, then shuffle optimizations could be used.
It would only be advantageous if the data is streamed. The packets are
probably accumulated in a way that would cause more overhead just to
sort them and stream them. If there are ones that can be arranged, then
it may be practical.<br>
<br>
<br>
Melanie wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid48A8D943.4090304@t-data.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:melanie@t-data.com"><melanie@t-data.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:49:51 +0100
Melanie <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:melanie@t-data.com"><melanie@t-data.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de">Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev">https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de">Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev">https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de">Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev">https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de">Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev">https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>