System TMAAS (Textmacro Abusing Attachment System)

[Gwypaas]

If you want a benchmark for it, then here it is.

As you see, my system is alot faster then HSAS.

And this is ALOT faster then Timerutils (blue) since this uses a default array for id's less then 8191. It's the same speed as Timerutils (blue) for higher ids.

 

[Flare]

I'm getting syntax errors with that xD

The benchmark's internals after your system

function Trig_Run_Script_Thread_0 takes nothing returns nothing
 local integer i= 1
 local integer j= udg_zzExecutions_Per_Thread / 10
	set udg_zzScriptThreadOpen = true
	loop
		exitwhen i > j
call  // INLINED!!
call  // INLINED!!
call  // INLINED!!
call  // INLINED!!
call  // INLINED!!
call  // INLINED!!
call  // INLINED!!
call  // INLINED!!
call  // INLINED!!
call  // INLINED!!
		set i = i + 1
	endloop
	set udg_zzScriptThreadOpen = false
endfunction

That // INLINED!! function sounds awesome

EDIT: Oh wait, that's because TestScript0 isn't being used xD

EDIT: Oh wait, it's happening to all the scripts that only have a return - wonder why it happens to me and (seemingly) not to you - I'll just place some random function in there

 

[Gwypaas]

Activate debug mode and it works.

 

[Gwypaas]

First Bump

OH MAH GAAAWD

 

[Darthfett]

I think your SetDecrease and init function looks better like this? (It also has one less handle. ):

private function SetDecrease takes nothing returns nothing
    set TMAAS_DECREASE = TMAAS_H2I(GetExpiredTimer())
endfunction

private function init takes nothing returns nothing
    call TimerStart(CreateTimer(),0,false,function SetDecrease)
endfunction

Also, I don't really see why this is a "Textmacro Abusing" attachment system. It's just a simple handle array. Does it even recycle the arrayed handles?

 

[Romek]

> Darthfett
The function would have to return nothing for that to work.

 

[Darthfett]

> Darthfett
The function would have to return nothing for that to work.

Very true. (fix'd!)

Anyways, I don't know much about how recycling handles works, but I thought if you didn't null a handle it leaked. With this system, you're keeping an array of all the handles ever stored (correct?). Wouldn't that cause potential memory problems?

 

[Gwypaas]

Updated
Changes - Remade the init function (Thought of it before your post Darthfett xD) also improved documentation.

Anyways, I don't know much about how recycling handles works, but I thought if you didn't null a handle it leaked. With this system, you're keeping an array of all the handles ever stored (correct?). Wouldn't that cause potential memory problems?

Only 2 integer arrays.

Also, I don't really see why this is a "Textmacro Abusing" attachment system. It's just a simple handle array.

The only system out that uses textmacros for attaching / Retrieving

Does it even recycle the arrayed handles?

Why should it recycle them? There's absolutely no point in trying to recycle an integer array.

 

[Romek]

The only system out that uses textmacros for attaching / Retrieving

Maybe because others thought it was a bad idea. .
It is fast however. No denying that.

Also, When setting DATAZBIG, you could set the index to index - 8191.
So that you're not wasting that entire array in the oversized ones.
(You are using a different array for ones <8191)

 

[Gwypaas]

Would be slower (I think it will) and what's the difference between 409500 and 400000 array slots? Your map still breaks before that value

 

[Romek]

Would be slower (I think it will)

That depends if subtracting a value, then doing 1 if-check is slower than doing 2 if-checks. (And subtracting + 2 ifs is slower than 3 ifs, etc)

Scenario A: What you're doing now
Scenario B: What I'm suggesting

//Assume index was 10000, and 8191 was subtracted for B
if index < 8191 then // A: false. // B: true
return ARRAYA[index] // B: function finishes.
elseif index < 16382 then // A: true
return ARRAYB[index-8191] // A: function finishes. (And there's a subtraction anyway)
//etc.
endif

(Taken from post above)

 

[Gwypaas]

Yeah I know...

I might inline the oversized arrays to make it faster but.. it would look fugly