On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com> wrote: > Just a few comments: > > 0) First, let me re-iterate that I think that it's unacceptable for us to > move forward with a specification that allows for "shared mutable state > without locks" (as Jens Nockert so concisely put it). I really think that > we have to (and should be able to) find a solution to this. > > 1) memcpy is really, really fast on any modern CPU architecture (you'll > find it's *the* most optimized routine, both in software and in hardware). > Having hand optimized graphics rasterization loops in assembler for ARM > I've learned that it's impossible to get even close to its speed even when > only doing trivial stuff, such as adding a constant value to a buffer or so. > Marcus, this isn't so much an issue of how fast memcpy() is, although that could be a concern too. It's about the overhead of the additional memory footprint (caused by the extra mallocs).
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2013 21:35:19 UTC