SWIG › swig-user

Light weight types

Classic

List

Threaded

3 messages Options

Jeremy Cowles

Light weight types

Hey swig-users,

First, is it expected that lots of calls to a C# binding will be slow? I have wrapped a math library and assigning vectors in a mesh is much slower than native C++ (I expect this should be slow, but I figured I should ask).

Second, assuming that is expected, are there any strategies for wrapping light weight types that are used in tight loops? (I would make these value types C#)

Thanks!

Jeremy

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers
Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise?
Reconnect with the command line and become more productive.
Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy!
http://sdm.link/telerik
_______________________________________________
Swig-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swig-user

William S Fulton

Re: Light weight types

On 28 October 2016 at 15:21, Jeremy Cowles <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hey swig-users,
>
> First, is it expected that lots of calls to a C# binding will be slow? I
> have wrapped a math library and assigning vectors in a mesh is much slower
> than native C++ (I expect this should be slow, but I figured I should ask).
>
Yes, for very fast running C++ functions, the overhead is often
completely dominated by the marshalling cost, especially when strings
are involved.

> Second, assuming that is expected, are there any strategies for wrapping
> light weight types that are used in tight loops? (I would make these value
> types C#)
Avoiding multiple calls between C++ and C# by using a chunky API
rather than a chatty API is the only way I've managed to avoid this
problem. Also reduce the number of parameters passed in the wrapped
function as each one adds a marshalling overhead.

William

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers
Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise?
Reconnect with the command line and become more productive.
Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy!
http://sdm.link/telerik
_______________________________________________
Swig-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swig-user

Jeremy Cowles

Re: Light weight types

Makes sense, I guess I was hoping for a silver bullet :)

I have made some vectorized APIs, using bulk mem copies instead of lots of little setters, but it completely changes the feel of the original API.

Thanks!

On Saturday, October 29, 2016, William S Fulton <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 28 October 2016 at 15:21, Jeremy Cowles <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'jeremy.cowles@gmail.com')">jeremy.cowles@...> wrote:
> Hey swig-users,
>
> First, is it expected that lots of calls to a C# binding will be slow? I
> have wrapped a math library and assigning vectors in a mesh is much slower
> than native C++ (I expect this should be slow, but I figured I should ask).
>
Yes, for very fast running C++ functions, the overhead is often
completely dominated by the marshalling cost, especially when strings
are involved.

> Second, assuming that is expected, are there any strategies for wrapping
> light weight types that are used in tight loops? (I would make these value
> types C#)
Avoiding multiple calls between C++ and C# by using a chunky API
rather than a chatty API is the only way I've managed to avoid this
problem. Also reduce the number of parameters passed in the wrapped
function as each one adds a marshalling overhead.

William