Re: [xmlvm-users] No dependence on NSAutoreleasePool

[Joshua M. <xm...@me...>]

Yes it is necssacry, though in some cases it may be possible to avoid it.

Basically, if you don't null them out after release, other code paths *may*
try to release them again (which would be bad).  In some cases, the nulling
out isn't necessary -- this is one of the optimizations I intend to add in
the future.

Additionally,  consider that setting a register to [NsNull null] is in
general going to be a great deal more efficient than adding an object to an
auto release pool.  So even with unnecessary nulling, we are still faster
than autorelease.  We will be even faster in the future when I trim out some
of this extra stuff..

-- Joshua Melcon


2010/3/25 Panayotis Katsaloulis <pan...@pa...>

> I have another question:
>
> At the produced code, I can see something like:
>
>    [_r0.o release]; _r0.o = [NSNull null];
>    [_r1.o release]; _r1.o = [NSNull null];
>    [_r2.o release]; _r2.o = [NSNull null];
> …
>
> for all variables.
> Is this necessary?
> Of course it is not something that will harm, but maybe even these few cpu
> cycles might be important :)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
>