Tommi Prami

I bet you did not fix the actual problem here. -Tee-

If you write and/or access same string from multiple threads, is not thread safe. If you did not get errors or memory leaks is pure luck, or you did not check memory leaks with tool, that actually will report you the actual horror of updating strigg from multiple thread without proper protection (not a condom) -Tee-

Maybe you could make bug report to emba, maybe they fixit or not. -Tee-

Hello, Tried to find the documentation of [ref] attribute, famously used in FreeAndNil -implementation lately, but could not find it from Embacdero help. (FreeAndNil is defined as: procedure FreeAndNil(const [ref] Obj: TObject);) So could someone point me to the documentation of the attribute ands/or explain what it actually does? -Tee-

Works. Thank you very much! -Tee-

Tried that with record as parameter, did not see any speedup, const and const [ref] had same performance. Winning clearly if it was passed as by value eith const ore var. I was jsut thinkin that could there be places and code (in my code ba se for example) thjat could benefit from [ref]? -Tee-

I have been in impression that const actually would do something like that already. So parameter would be passed as reference. Will juust not allow changin it.... Is there some clear benefit of using [ref],m unless in need of doing something like in the FreeAndNil iomplementation.

I see the same behavior, with single 4K monitor.

Yellow, Has anyone done parallel tests, of some kind. Some tests I have to run takles quite a long time, and might be nice to run those in parallel., In this case tests are just procedure with all code, that does something for different inputs (from predefined array etc). So in theory it would be simple, with TTask from PPL. I was just thinking what I have to take into consideration if test fails etc. I would need to use PPL, for these, sadly OTL is not possibility. As far as I know, there is nothing built in in the DUnitX. -Tee-

Yellow, again... Did Quick tests with PPL, seems that tested code it self did not work wery well when runniing in parallel. Do'h Heve to to think of this later... Code should be about thread safe, but did not cope, or at least I did not saw anything that was obviously not thhread safee and protected few spots with Critical section. -Tee-

Yellow, I was pondering have you measured in some way will this actually speed things up. -Tee-

I was curious does the compiled optimize out inhetiance that is needlesly added. Turns out it can't. Is there any technical reason that this is not possible, how Delphi classes work, or it is just missing optimization from Delphi compiler., My point here is that, if you care, remove unneeded in heritance from ytou code base. Effect is very small, most likely not even measurable, but do as you please. In very tight loopå this might be porblem, most cases not. Why someone would add those, is different discussion. Sometimes I add overridden method, because I think I need to do something in there, but I just forget to remove it later. Test project: unit Unit27; interface uses Winapi.Windows, Winapi.Messages, System.SysUtils, System.Variants, System.Classes, Vcl.Graphics, Vcl.Controls, Vcl.Forms, Vcl.Dialogs, Vcl.StdCtrls; type TForm27 = class(TForm) Button1: TButton; Memo1: TMemo; procedure FormCreate(Sender: TObject); procedure Button1Click(Sender: TObject); private { Private declarations } public { Public declarations } end; TBaseClass = class(TObject) strict private FList: TStringList; public constructor Create; destructor Destroy; override; end; TFoo1 = class(TBaseClass) strict private public constructor Create; destructor Destroy; override; end; TFoo2 = class(TFoo1) strict private public constructor Create; destructor Destroy; override; end; TFoo3 = class(TFoo2) strict private public constructor Create; destructor Destroy; override; end; TFoo4 = class(TFoo3) strict private public constructor Create; destructor Destroy; override; end; TFoo5 = class(TFoo4) strict private public constructor Create; destructor Destroy; override; end; TFoo6 = class(TFoo5) strict private public constructor Create; destructor Destroy; override; end; TFoo7 = class(TFoo6) strict private public constructor Create; destructor Destroy; override; end; TFoo8 = class(TFoo7) strict private public constructor Create; destructor Destroy; override; end; TFoo9 = class(TFoo8) strict private public constructor Create; destructor Destroy; override; end; TFoo10 = class(TFoo9) strict private public constructor Create; destructor Destroy; override; end; var Form27: TForm27; implementation {$R *.dfm} uses System.Diagnostics; procedure TForm27.Button1Click(Sender: TObject); const LOOP_COUNT = 1_000_000; var LSW: TStopwatch; begin LSW := TStopwatch.StartNew; for var I := 1 to LOOP_COUNT do begin var LObject := TBaseClass.Create; LObject.Free; end; LSW.Stop; Memo1.Lines.Add('BaseClass: ' + FormatFloat('0.00', LSW.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds) + ' ms'); LSW := TStopwatch.StartNew; for var I := 1 to LOOP_COUNT do begin var LObject := TFoo10.Create; LObject.Free; end; LSW.Stop; Memo1.Lines.Add('unneeded inheritance: ' + FormatFloat('0.00', LSW.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds) + ' ms'); end; procedure TForm27.FormCreate(Sender: TObject); begin end; { TBaseClass } constructor TBaseClass.Create; begin inherited Create; FList := TStringList.Create; end; destructor TBaseClass.Destroy; begin FList.Free; inherited Destroy; end; { TFoo9 } constructor TFoo9.Create; begin inherited Create; end; destructor TFoo9.Destroy; begin inherited Destroy; end; { TFoo1 } constructor TFoo1.Create; begin inherited Create; end; destructor TFoo1.Destroy; begin inherited Destroy; end; { TFoo2 } constructor TFoo2.Create; begin inherited Create; end; destructor TFoo2.Destroy; begin inherited Destroy; end; { TFoo3 } constructor TFoo3.Create; begin inherited Create; end; destructor TFoo3.Destroy; begin inherited Destroy; end; { TFoo4 } constructor TFoo4.Create; begin inherited Create; end; destructor TFoo4.Destroy; begin inherited Destroy; end; { TFoo5 } constructor TFoo5.Create; begin inherited Create; end; destructor TFoo5.Destroy; begin inherited Destroy; end; { TFoo6 } constructor TFoo6.Create; begin inherited Create; end; destructor TFoo6.Destroy; begin inherited Destroy; end; { TFoo7 } constructor TFoo7.Create; begin inherited Create; end; destructor TFoo7.Destroy; begin inherited Destroy; end; { TFoo8 } constructor TFoo8.Create; begin inherited Create; end; destructor TFoo8.Destroy; begin inherited Destroy; end; { TFoo10 } constructor TFoo10.Create; begin inherited Create; end; destructor TFoo10.Destroy; begin inherited Destroy; end; end.

Any optimization that makes Object/Recor "init/deinit" faster is surely good optimization. These will make almost mall apps faster. Other good candidates would be TList, TStrings, TDataSet (and descendants), just on top of my head. All in those would help in many places. Surely there are tons of places in RTL thatb would need some love...

That is quite nice. Thanks for info.

For sure. I just thought (or hoped) that this kind of unneeded stuff would be optimized out quite from the start. Curiocity came from, that I stumbled upon that kind of code, not that deep for sure as my example, just wanted to measure, and report the results here. -Tee-

True, Benefit would be very small.

I think you need to fork, and make OTL work on ubuntu and make pull request, and hope it will be accepted. If Primoz don't use Linux him self, I think he has little interest to make it work on Linux, just for fun of it. -Tee-

Wrong forum maybe?

https://curiouscoding.nl/posts/static-search-tree/ I have no clue does the claim of 40x speed hold up, but if it is 40% speed up, that would be very nice 🙂 -Tee-

Also linked article: https://curiouscoding.nl/posts/cpu-benchmarks/ Could be interesting also. Article is work inn progress tough...

Is there a (public) repository for this? Very interesting anyways, thanks...

And Delphi 64bit compiler is slow (at compiling) and resulted ASM is not too fast either.

Registry need cleanup I think... Could not find it tough. I'll let you know if I find where this is coming from. Had typo while searching, found from expected place at the registry. This also caught my eye. Should this registration also be gone at the uninstall

Or just "setter" method with original code. Something like... function SetFloatParameter(const ADataSet: TDataSet; const AParamName: string; const AValueOK: Boolean; const AFloatValue: Double); begin Result := False; if AValueOK then begin ADataSet.ParamByName(AParamName).AsFloat := AFloatValue; Result := True; end else ADataSet.ParamByName(AParamName).Clear; end;

Reported related that has annoyed me... https://embt.atlassian.net/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/RSS-2352