You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Working on #944 , I also found an annoyance / inefficiency with UnifiedMemory:
UnifiedMemory is an enum containing MinidumpMemoryBase with different generic parameters, so we are doing a match on that as well on each access.
MINIDUMP_MEMORY_DESCRIPTOR/64 are both 16 bytes, so we might as well just wrap the Descriptor in an enum, and remove all the generic parameters from MinidumpMemory(List)Base.
This should clean up the code with less generics, and also avoid a match in the hot code path. I doubt any hot code path ever cares about the inner descriptor, so we might as well remove it completely from MinidumpMemoryBase, and move it someplace else.
Another observation is that MinidumpMemoryBase.size is pretty redundant with MinidumpMemoryBase.bytes.len(), so might as well remove that too?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Working on #944 , I also found an annoyance / inefficiency with
UnifiedMemory
:UnifiedMemory
is an enum containingMinidumpMemoryBase
with different generic parameters, so we are doing a match on that as well on each access.MINIDUMP_MEMORY_DESCRIPTOR/64
are both 16 bytes, so we might as well just wrap theDescriptor
in an enum, and remove all the generic parameters fromMinidumpMemory(List)Base
.This should clean up the code with less generics, and also avoid a match in the hot code path. I doubt any hot code path ever cares about the inner descriptor, so we might as well remove it completely from
MinidumpMemoryBase
, and move it someplace else.Another observation is that
MinidumpMemoryBase.size
is pretty redundant withMinidumpMemoryBase.bytes.len()
, so might as well remove that too?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: