BorlandTalk.com Borland discussion newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive? Goto page 1, 2  Next          BorlandTalk.com Forum Index -> Delphi Language BASM View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Adem Guest Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 10:53 pm    Post subject: FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive? Hi, I am not sure what each one really does but when I tried uses FastMM4, FastMove, FastObj I kept getting AVs. I still do, and it is quite repeatable. So, my question is: Are FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive Back to top John O'Harrow Guest Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:03 am    Post subject: Re: FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive? Where can I find the source for FastObj, so that I can investigate this. -- regards, John The Fastcode Project: http://www.fastcodeproject.org/ "Adem" <adembaba (AT) excite (DOT) com> wrote Quote: Hi, I am not sure what each one really does but when I tried uses FastMM4, FastMove, FastObj I kept getting AVs. I still do, and it is quite repeatable. So, my question is: Are FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive Back to top Adem Guest Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:49 am    Post subject: Re: FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive? John O'Harrow wrote: Quote: Where can I find the source for FastObj, so that I can investigate this. This is what I tried it with: -- D7 -- FastMM4 v4.56 -- FastMove v1.00 - 07-SEP-2003 -- {plus 10/09/03} FastObj.zip is at: nntp://forums.borland.com/borland.public.attachments/9895 Cheers, Adem Back to top John O'Harrow Guest Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:38 pm    Post subject: Re: FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive? Hi Adem, FastMove v 1.00 is very old, and has a bug in the patching mechanism. I have placed a copy of FastMove Ver 3.03 in attachments. -- regards, John The Fastcode Project: http://www.fastcodeproject.org/ "Adem" <adembaba (AT) excite (DOT) com> wrote Quote: John O'Harrow wrote: Where can I find the source for FastObj, so that I can investigate this. This is what I tried it with: -- D7 -- FastMM4 v4.56 -- FastMove v1.00 - 07-SEP-2003 -- {plus 10/09/03} FastObj.zip is at: nntp://forums.borland.com/borland.public.attachments/9895 Cheers, Adem Back to top Adem Guest Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:31 pm    Post subject: Re: FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive? John O'Harrow wrote: Quote: Hi Adem, FastMove v 1.00 is very old, and has a bug in the patching mechanism. I have placed a copy of FastMove Ver 3.03 in attachments. Hi John, Thanks for the updated copy. I tried it with the new one, but I get the same AV. Obviously, it could be due to several things. My code, FastMM4, FastMove, or FastObj... Thing is, the only thing that changed since it ran properly is a newer version of FastMM4 (and now FastMove, but this did not alter the AV behavior). That leaves me, I suppose, with one possibility: FastObj doesn't like somethingf that might have changed in FastMM4. I'll try contacting FastObj's author. Thank you again. Cheers, Adem Back to top Adem Guest Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:27 pm    Post subject: Re: FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive? Adem wrote: Quote: Hi, I am not sure what each one really does but when I tried uses FastMM4, FastMove, FastObj I kept getting AVs. I still do, and it is quite repeatable. So, my question is: Are FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive Well, it rurns out FastObj is sensitive to Record Field Alignment which has to be a multiple of 4. And, I had accidentally set it to 1 --I don't know why, I don't need it anyway. Using Record Field Alignment of 4 or 8 solves that problem. Back to top Roby DP Guest Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:31 am    Post subject: Re: FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive? Hi Adem, is fastObj reliable? And how much speed up? TNX Quote: Hi, I am not sure what each one really does but when I tried uses FastMM4, FastMove, FastObj I kept getting AVs. I still do, and it is quite repeatable. So, my question is: Are FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ Back to top Roby DP Guest Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:53 am    Post subject: Re: FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive? sorry again me, where download latest version of fastobj, in attachments seem damaged or lack of patchlib unit. TNX Quote: Hi Adem, is fastObj reliable? And how much speed up? TNX Hi, I am not sure what each one really does but when I tried uses FastMM4, FastMove, FastObj I kept getting AVs. I still do, and it is quite repeatable. So, my question is: Are FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ Back to top Gabriel Corneanu Guest Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:28 pm    Post subject: Re: FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive? Hi, Actually only the instance size must be multiple of 4 (I think, I still don't have an example). For performance reasons, all move/copy operations in fastobj are implemented as multiple of 4. I always thought that even if the instance size is not multiple of 4, the memory allocator was still rounding like this. I would really like to see an example of how to reproduce the error. I should make a small change to NOT apply auto optimization for classes where instance size does not respect the condition. Regards, Gabriel "Adem" <adembaba (AT) excite (DOT) com> wrote Quote: Adem wrote: Hi, I am not sure what each one really does but when I tried uses FastMM4, FastMove, FastObj I kept getting AVs. I still do, and it is quite repeatable. So, my question is: Are FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive Well, it rurns out FastObj is sensitive to Record Field Alignment which has to be a multiple of 4. And, I had accidentally set it to 1 --I don't know why, I don't need it anyway. Using Record Field Alignment of 4 or 8 solves that problem. Back to top Adem Guest Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:27 pm    Post subject: Re: FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive? Roby DP wrote: Hi Roby, Quote: is fastObj reliable? And how much speed up? I am not in a position to state much along these lines as I am still evaluating. As far as reliability is concerned, I haven't met with a case it screwed up --other the one I mentioned above which seems by design anyay. HTH, Adem Back to top Adem Guest Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:47 pm    Post subject: Re: FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive? Gabriel Corneanu wrote: Hi, Quote: Actually only the instance size must be multiple of 4 (I think, I still don't have an example). I could send you an exaple, but sine in PM you said that (for the version applicable at the time --a week or so ago) needed multiples of 4, I didn't see the need to send you one. Anyway, as things stand, I have used the fastObj code in attachments and it just works --irrespective of what Record Field Alignment is selected. IOW, in plain English: the new version of FastObj works. I can confirm this for situation --which was what brought out this discussion anyway. Quote: For performance reasons, all move/copy operations in fastobj are implemented as multiple of 4. I always thought that even if the instance size is not multiple of 4, the memory allocator was still rounding like this. No arguements gainst this from me. All I did --by some stupid accident-- was to set the Record Field Alignment to 1. I don't know, remember, why or when I did that. But, while it compiled OK, it started giving me AVs in the most unexpected places. In desperation (i.e time-honored engineering practice) I started removing what I thought might be the culprit. FastObj turned out it. I didn't know why then. Then I found the 1 set for Record Field Alignment :-) Quote: I would really like to see an example of how to reproduce the error. I can send you one. If you still need it. Quote: I should make a small change to NOT apply auto optimization for classes where instance size does not respect the condition. A better one might be a compiler directive to decide what to do. Sometimes, see my story above, it might be immeasurably more useful if you warned me against it :-) One final thing: I can see that there is a BorlandMM Dll replacement dpr in the new package. Can you elaborate how and when you suggest we wsould use this. Cheers, Adem Back to top Gabriel Corneanu Guest Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:03 pm    Post subject: Re: FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive? I updated both the CVS and posted to attachments. Gabriel Back to top Gabriel Corneanu Guest Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:08 pm    Post subject: Re: FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive? Hi, I posted it again. Several people said they were using fastobj a lot without any problem for quite some time now. Regarding performance (same as FastMM), it really depends on what you're doing. If you don't create a lot of objects, you might not notice it. In some artificial tests I measure some speed increase down to 60% (I mean 1.9 seconds down to 1.2 seconds for the same test). Better benchmarking would still be nice to have. Regards, Gabriel "Roby DP <roberto at dellapasqua dot >" <com> wrote sorry again me, where download latest version of fastobj, in attachments seem damaged or lack of patchlib unit. TNX Quote: Hi Adem, is fastObj reliable? And how much speed up? TNX Hi, I am not sure what each one really does but when I tried uses FastMM4, FastMove, FastObj I kept getting AVs. I still do, and it is quite repeatable. So, my question is: Are FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ Back to top Adem Guest Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:21 am    Post subject: Re: FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive? Gabriel Corneanu wrote: Hi, Quote: I hope it is clear now. Thanks. That part is clear. How about this bit I asked in prev post: One final thing: I can see that there is a BorlandMM Dll replacement dpr in the new package. Can you elaborate how and when you suggest we would use this. Back to top Gabriel Corneanu Guest Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:27 am    Post subject: Re: FastMove and FastObj mutually excousive? Hi, I could reproduce the issue myself, that's why I could test and decided to publish it. As you also said, the solution has 2 options: - if "ForceRoundInstanceSize" is defined (see comment in .inc), it will always accept classes but round up the size (which can happen only if alignment is < 4). I tested it and it seems ok. It's a fact that MM always round up memory allocations. - if "ForceRoundInstanceSize" is not defined and a trivial test shows that field alignment is < 4, a compiler warning is issued. You should get a message about it. However, the test is not perfect. One could always modify the alignment only in a particular unit and apply only to some classes. In this case no warning is issued and such classes will not be processed. To always process them, define as described in first part. In short, fastobj should always be safe but there are some choices about behavior. I hope it is clear now. Regards, Gabriel "Adem" Quote: Gabriel Corneanu wrote: Hi, Actually only the instance size must be multiple of 4 (I think, I still don't have an example). I could send you an exaple, but sine in PM you said that (for the version applicable at the time --a week or so ago) needed multiples of 4, I didn't see the need to send you one. Anyway, as things stand, I have used the fastObj code in attachments and it just works --irrespective of what Record Field Alignment is selected. IOW, in plain English: the new version of FastObj works. I can confirm this for situation --which was what brought out this discussion anyway. For performance reasons, all move/copy operations in fastobj are implemented as multiple of 4. I always thought that even if the instance size is not multiple of 4, the memory allocator was still rounding like this. No arguements gainst this from me. All I did --by some stupid accident-- was to set the Record Field Alignment to 1. I don't know, remember, why or when I did that. But, while it compiled OK, it started giving me AVs in the most unexpected places. In desperation (i.e time-honored engineering practice) I started removing what I thought might be the culprit. FastObj turned out it. I didn't know why then. Then I found the 1 set for Record Field Alignment :-) I would really like to see an example of how to reproduce the error. I can send you one. If you still need it. I should make a small change to NOT apply auto optimization for classes where instance size does not respect the condition. A better one might be a compiler directive to decide what to do. Sometimes, see my story above, it might be immeasurably more useful if you warned me against it :-) One final thing: I can see that there is a BorlandMM Dll replacement dpr in the new package. Can you elaborate how and when you suggest we wsould use this. Cheers, Adem Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         BorlandTalk.com Forum Index -> Delphi Language BASM All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2  Next Page 1 of 2   Jump to: Select a forum C++ Builder Newsgroups----------------C++ BuilderC++ Builder (ActiveX)C++ Builder (Announcements)C++ Builder (Command Line Tools)C++ Builder DatabasesC++ Builder Databases (ADO)C++ Builder Databases (Desktop)C++ Builder Databases (InterBase Express)C++ Builder Databases (Multi-Tier)C++ Builder Databases (SQL Servers)C++ Builder (Graphics)C++ Builder (IDE)C++ Builder (Internet)C++ Builder (Internet Socket)C++ Builder (Internet Web)C++ Builder (Jobs)C++ Builder (Language)C++ Builder (Language C++)C++ Builder (Compatibility with MFC)C++ Builder (Native API)C++ Builder (Non-Technical)C++ Builder (Students)C++ Builder (Third Party Tools)C++ Builder (Upgrade)C++ Builder (VCL)C++ Builder (VCL Components Usage)C++ Builder (VCL Components Development)C++ Builder (VCL Usage)C++ Builder (WinAPI)C++ Builder Installation Delphi Newsgroups----------------Delphi (General)Delphi ActiveX Controls UsageDelphi ActiveX Controls DevelopmentDelphi As400Delphi DatabasesDelphi Databases (ADO)Delphi Databases (dbExpress)Delphi Databases (Desktop)Delphi Databases (InterBase Express)Delphi Databases (Multi-Tier)Delphi Databases (SQL Servers)Delphi DeploymentDelphi GraphicsDelphi IDEDelphi InternationalizationDelphi InternetDelphi Internet Isapi-WebBrokerDelphi Internet WebSnapDelphi Internet WinsockDelphi JobsDelphi Language BASMDelphi Language ObjectPascalDelphi Model Driven Architecture (General)Delphi Model Driven Architecture (Third Party)Delphi MultimediaDelphi Native APIDelphi Non-TechnicalDelphi ObjectPascalDelphi OLE AutomationDelphi OO designDelphi OpenToolsAPIDelphi Reporting-ChartingDelphi RTLDelphi StudentsDelphi TeamSourceDelphi Thirdparty ToolsDelphi Thirdparty Tools (General)Delphi Thirdparty Tools (IntraWeb)Delphi Thirdparty Tools (RaveReports)Delphi UpgradeDelphi VCLDelphi VCL ComponentsDelphi VCL Components UsingDelphi VCL Components WritingDelphi WebServices SOAPDelphi WinAPIDelphi XMLDelphi Installationcomp.lang.pascal.delphi.components.misccomp.lang.pascal.delphi.components.usagecomp.lang.pascal.delphi.components.writingcomp.lang.pascal.delphi.databasescomp.lang.pascal.delphi.misccomp.sources.delphi JBuilder Newsgroups----------------JBuilderJBuilder AnnouncementsJBuilder Applet IssuesJBuilder As400JBuilder CompilerJBuilder CORBA/RMIJBuilder DatabasesJBuilder DB SwingJBuilder DebuggerJBuilder DeploymentJBuilder DocumentationJBuilder EnterpriseJBuilder HandheldJBuilder IDEJBuilder JavaJBuilder JavaAPIJBuilder Java LanguageJBuilder Java SwingJBuilder Java BeansJBuilder Java Beans UsageJBuilder Java Beans DevelopmentJBuilder JBCLJBuilder JDataStoreJBuilder JobsJBuilder LinuxJBuilder MacintoshJBuilder & MobileSetJBuilder MultiLingual AppsJBuilder Non-TechnicalJBuilder OpenToolsJBuilder Servlets (JSP)JBuilder StudentsJBuilder Team DevelopmentJBuilder Thirdparty ToolsJBuilder UpgradeJBuilder Installation InterBase Newsgroups----------------InterBaseInterBase Bug DiscussionInterBase GeneralInterBase IBConsoleInterBase OpenSourceInterBase ReplicationInterBase SQLInterBase ThirdpartyInterBase Installation Miscellaneous Borland Newsgroups----------------AppCenterAppServerEnteraVisiBroker  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.