Norman Palardy wrote:
> On 16-May-07, at 12:23 PM, Fargo Holiday wrote:
>
>
>>>> Also, at least in Windows, a program that monitors system-wide
>>>> keystrokes may be identified as a virus.
>>>>
>>> A virus programmed in REALBasic...that would be interesting. How
>>> ginormous would that be?? Not only non-stealth but totally anti-
>>> stealth! :-)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I dunno. Explorer usually eats up enough memory that people would just
>> blame it on that. Or the random failing MS$SQL transactions.
>>
>> Besides, call it msimportant.exe and 90% of home users won't touch it.
>>
>
> Or throw up and ad saying "Is your computer virus free ? Click here
> to get one"
> Stunningly this worked for a small percentage of Windows users :)
> <http://didierstevens.wordpress.com/2007/05/07/is-your-pc-virus-free-
> get-it-infected-here/>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
Oh man. I fix computers for a living, and that sort of reflex... for
lack of a better word... is disturbingly common. Most people have been
inundated by meaningless windows messages for so long that they don't
bother to read any of it. The rest of them are just hopeless in general. =)
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
From Wed 16 May 2007 13:04:47 -0600
Return-Path: <realbasic-nug-bounces at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
X-Original-To: listarchive at realsoftware dot com
Delivered-To: listarchive at realsoftware dot com
Received: by xmail.realsoftware.com (Postfix, from userid 1037)
id D90F72633DE8; Wed, 16 May 2007 12:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on
www.realsoftware.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=4.5 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,
NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=ham version=3.1.1
Received: from lists.realsoftware.com (m.realsoftware.com [66.116.103.65])
by xmail.realsoftware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB1C32633DB1;
Wed, 16 May 2007 12:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from real-software-mini.local (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by lists.realsoftware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE8BF2D3CCC;
Wed, 16 May 2007 14:04:49 -0500 (CDT)
X-Original-To: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
Delivered-To: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
Received: from mail.verex.com (mail.verex.com [66.116.103.197])
by lists.realsoftware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E112D3CA9
for <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>;
Wed, 16 May 2007 14:04:45 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [66.116.103.197] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.verex.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6FFCC750A5D
for <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>;
Wed, 16 May 2007 13:04:47 -0600 (MDT)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 13:04:47 -0600
Subject: Re: Shocking difference in performance between RB and C when copying
float data between memoryblocks
From: joe at strout dot net
To: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
In-Reply-To: <B46FBF08-D96A-44E0-A825-2460E047C32F at chaoticbox dot com>
X-Mailer: VerEx Email Gateway
Message-Id: <20070516190447 dot 6FFCC750A5D at mail dot verex dot com>
X-BeenThere: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: REALbasic NUG <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: realbasic-nug-bounces at lists dot realsoftware dot com
Errors-To: realbasic-nug-bounces at lists dot realsoftware dot com
On May 16, 2007, at 17:44 UTC, Frank Condello wrote:
> Daniel's profiling a loop that uses direct Ptr access - there are no
> function calls.
What? Is Ptr.SingleValue(index) not a function call?
> The report evaluation suggests he wasn't testing in release builds
> which is why he was seeing such a big discrepancy.
Ah, we should have asked that right off -- there is indeed a fair
amount of overhead in debugging support, which will show up in tight
loops like this one (which we expect to be able to stop, for example,
even when background tasks are disabled).
> However the report
> makes some incorrect assumptions as well - basically this test is
> flawed. Daniel's code is making a function call in the dylib case and
> no function calls in the RB case so if all things were equal RB
> should've been _way_ faster, not just marginally faster.
Again I wonder why you say .SingleValue isn't a function call. Have I
missed something?
> You can gain a lot speed in RB by manually unrolling loops but that's
> not always appropriate (or pretty). I think we simply need a more
> reasonable test case to pinpoint the problem areas.
I'll buy that.
Cheers,
- Joe
--
Joe Strout -- joe at strout dot net
Strout Custom Solutions
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|