 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / Languages / Managed C++ / August 2007Differences between Visual C++ and Visual C++.Net
Hi all, is there a differene between VC.Net and VC? (performance issues not the syntax) and which is more efficient for programs that need very effecient memry utilizations and multithreading applications? Thanks, nana > Hi all, > > is there a differene between VC.Net and VC? (performance issues not the > syntax) and which is more efficient for programs that need very effecient > memry utilizations and multithreading applications? It's not clear what you're asking, since there are no products named "VC" or "VC.NET". Are you asking about differences between Visual C++ (2002? 2003? 2005? 2008?) when producing native code versus managed code? Or is it something else? Efficiency is tricky - you need to be very specific about what's important. For example, allocating memory is many times more efficient in managed code than in unmanaged code, but there are other trade-offs (memory related and otherwise) that may make managed code slower for a particular application. -cd > Hi all, > > is there a differene between VC.Net and VC? (performance issues not the > syntax) and which is more efficient for programs that need very effecient > memry utilizations and multithreading applications? Default memory allocator is a bottleneck for native C++ code, .NET's garbage collector does better. But .NET cannot even come close to the performance using a well-designed allocator like hoard. http://www.hoard.org/ > Thanks, > nana > Default memory allocator is a bottleneck for native C++ code, .NET's > garbage collector does better. But .NET cannot even come close to the > performance using a well-designed allocator like hoard. > http://www.hoard.org/ Can you point to any studies that justify that statement? The built-in allocqator for VC++ is certainly no winner on speed, but for certain workloads, I'd expect the .NET allocator to beat the best written non-GC allocator. Likewise, for certain workloads, I'd expect a well written non-GC allocator to kick the pants off of the .NET allocator. Which is better depends on your application. -cd >> Default memory allocator is a bottleneck for native C++ code, .NET's >> garbage collector does better. But .NET cannot even come close to the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > non-GC allocator to kick the pants off of the .NET allocator. Which is > better depends on your application. The .NET allocator is still a shared allocator, with all the performance hit associated with contention. Take a look at the hoard feature list. It accounts for and tries to automatically improve things I'd never even considered, like false cache-line sharing. The .NET allocator, though it benefits from the advantages of GC, simply isn't in the same class. Probably some gc-based allocator could beat hoard on the workloads you speak of, but I don't think the .NET one is sophisticated enough to compete. 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.