4 ms·

I would love to see this for C#. Avoiding heap allocations was something I had to tackle as part of a simulation software. C# has a handful of GC generations,

I would love to see this for C#. Avoiding heap allocations was something I had to tackle as part of a simulation software. C# has a handful of GC generations, and GC gen1 is very fast, but it's still faster to pool things ahead of time.

lynzrand 4y ago
You can access C#'s GC metrics through `System.GC.GetTotalAllocatedBytes` and similar APIs. Maybe you can make a benchmark and tracker for it yourself!
insanitybit 4y ago
This isn't related to heap allocations. It's about removing the cost of a stack variable being moved into another stack variable.
- yawgmoth 4y ago
  I became interested in stack performance specifically because I had to avoid heap allocations.
  - insanitybit 4y ago
    I mean, it's tangentially related, sure. It's also related to ML because computers run ML algorithms and computers run programs with stacks.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - yawgmoth 4y ago
      While I want to understand your point and welcome enlightenment, so far this conversation has just been kinda weirdly hostile.
pjmlp 4y ago
Using structs, stack allocations (safe since C# 7.x) and native heap go a long way. Many of the post C# 7 features have been used to improve .NET performance in techpower benchmarks, and rewrite runtime code from C++ into C#.
- int_19h 4y ago
  You can also use generic functions that take struct arguments instead of delegates to get something like STL. I wish there was some syntactic sugar in the language for that, too - basically, struct lambdas.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    There is a bit of that with static lambdas, function pointers (unsafe), but still isn't quite what you want.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Well, until relatively recently, they wouldn't be able to desugar what I really want into underlying bits. But now that we have verifiable ref structs with ref fields in them in C# 11, it's a straightforward transformation. Might be worth a proposal, actually...

lynzrand 4y ago

You can access C#'s GC metrics through `System.GC.GetTotalAllocatedBytes` and similar APIs. Maybe you can make a benchmark and tracker for it yourself!

insanitybit 4y ago

This isn't related to heap allocations. It's about removing the cost of a stack variable being moved into another stack variable.

yawgmoth 4y ago
I became interested in stack performance specifically because I had to avoid heap allocations.
- insanitybit 4y ago
  I mean, it's tangentially related, sure. It's also related to ML because computers run ML algorithms and computers run programs with stacks.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - yawgmoth 4y ago
    While I want to understand your point and welcome enlightenment, so far this conversation has just been kinda weirdly hostile.

pjmlp 4y ago

Using structs, stack allocations (safe since C# 7.x) and native heap go a long way. Many of the post C# 7 features have been used to improve .NET performance in techpower benchmarks, and rewrite runtime code from C++ into C#.

int_19h 4y ago
You can also use generic functions that take struct arguments instead of delegates to get something like STL. I wish there was some syntactic sugar in the language for that, too - basically, struct lambdas.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  There is a bit of that with static lambdas, function pointers (unsafe), but still isn't quite what you want.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Well, until relatively recently, they wouldn't be able to desugar what I really want into underlying bits. But now that we have verifiable ref structs with ref fields in them in C# 11, it's a straightforward transformation. Might be worth a proposal, actually...