 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / .NET Framework / CLR / September 2005empty finalizer bad for performance?
Hi I'm curious. If a class is written with an empty finalizer is there any reason why the compiler could not 'optimize' this away? Cheers Emma Middlebrook > I'm curious. If a class is written with an empty finalizer is there any > reason why the compiler could not 'optimize' this away? Wel, you've specifically requested a subtly different set of semantics - in particular, it's guaranteed that objects with finalizers on won't be garbage collected until they've been through the finalization queue. While it's hard to immediately envisage a use for that on its own, it's possible. (There can be reasons to have empty static constructors, for instance - something I wouldn't have imagined before coming across the curious behaviour of beforefieldinit.) Out of interest, are you the Emma I think you are? If so, give my regards to Andy and the team...  SignatureJon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too Jon wrote: > > I'm curious. If a class is written with an empty finalizer is there any > > reason why the compiler could not 'optimize' this away? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > instance - something I wouldn't have imagined before coming across the > curious behaviour of beforefieldinit.) I sort of see what you mean but I can't think of a reason. Those semantics were added by mistake so they should be taken out! > Out of interest, are you the Emma I think you are? If so, give my > regards to Andy and the team... No, you're thinking of the other one! Cheers Emma > > Wel, you've specifically requested a subtly different set of semantics > > - in particular, it's guaranteed that objects with finalizers on won't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I sort of see what you mean but I can't think of a reason. Those > semantics were added by mistake so they should be taken out! I suspect the best solution to this would be for the compiler to issue a warning if it detects a completely empty finalizer block - that would get you to fix the code rather than getting the compiler to ignore the fact that you've got something in there which basically shouldn't be there. SignatureJon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.