Api Change Proposal for improved (byte) array support (ArrayPools) #1161
+24
−5
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi
with this kind of low impact change I'm able to solve 95% of my performance issues coming from doing allocations for byte[] also mentioned in #975 .
Any chance to bring this (or anything else that works like this) into a v3.x release ?
Impact estimation:
There is ONE more "IF" Statement that must be executed at runtime:
if (ArrayFactory == null)If it resolves to "false" (the default) then the old behavior follows.
The costs for this extensions are the CPU ticks for the IF-Check...
BR
Werner