# AngelScript 2.5.0 WIP 2

This topic is 4705 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

It's been a while since I released new features, but it has been for a good reason. Much of the compiler and virtual machine has been rewritten to use three-op instructions and to do less copying of objects in instructions. You will likely see quite a bit of a performance increase, though how much depends on your scripts. I believe there are still places where I can optimize the script engine even more, but I'm satisfied for now and I'll go back to concentrate on new features instead. In terms of features this new release brings some change in the way parameter references work, mainly the &inout parameter references. In earlier versions this type passed a reference to a clone of the object to the function and when the function returned that clone was then copied back to the original object. To do this the argument expression had to be evaluated twice, which caused a lot of confusion. Worse yet, intuitively developers thought that changing the parameter reference inside the function would also immediately change the original object that could for example be a global variable. For this version I found a better solution, which is more efficient and less confusion, though a bit more restrictive. If the reference' life time can be guaranteed during the execution of the function the reference to the original object is passed in to the function, so there will be no extra copies, nor will the changes on the original object be deferred until the return of the function. The catch is that the reference' life time must be guaranteed, which can only be done in case the reference points to a local variable, or if it is an object that support object handles. For references that do not have this condition the script compiler will generate an error like this: 'Reference cannot be guaranteed. Copy the value to a local variable first'. I hope that this will be much less confusing to the developers, and that the extra restrictions won't be too hindering. The &in reference stays the same, i.e. it makes a copy of the value, even though the life-time of the reference is guaranteed. This is because any changes to the reference shouldn't be reflected upon the real object. One important difference with this new WIP is the const &in, in this case the function won't be able to change the object, thus the compiler passes the true reference if it can be guaranteed. This is especially useful registered operators, which should in almost all cases be written to take the operands as const &in, for better performance. The &out reference also stays the same, i.e. the reference passed to the function is to an empty value (or an object initialized by the default constructor). The output value is copied to the true reference once the funtion returns. The argument expression is only evaluated after the function returns. I've also been able to change the library so that registered operators can now use any type of references, thus you will finally be able to write those stream classes, both for input and output. The registered operators should have the following signatures:
stream &f(stream &inout, const type &in) // << operator
stream &f(stream &inout, type &out)      // >> operator

The stream class should support object handles. For the upcoming WIP versions I will be adding better debugging support, with access to variables on the context stack. And I will also concentrate on preparing the library for 64bit port. Regards, Andreas Released WIP 2[/edit] [Edited by - WitchLord on December 28, 2005 7:01:07 PM]

##### Share on other sites
Excellent, keep it up!

I have been very much looking forward to the new &inout! So I take it, &inout is the most efficient form of parameter passing, as there should be no object copying going on at all, right? So for performance reasons, when passing larger objects to functions, it would be good idea to use &inout even in cases where you would use &in (function not modifying the object)?

Thanks

##### Share on other sites
This is awesome news WL!

I've been eagerly awaiting 2.5.0

##### Share on other sites
Thanks guys! :D

Let me know what kind performance improvements you get.

In the case where the function will not be allowed to change the argument I think that const &in would be the preferred way. In all situations where &inout is accepted const &in is just as efficient, but where &inout is not accepted const &in still works, though with an extra copy.

Here's an example where &inout won't be accepted:

void funcInOut(int &inout a){  a = 0;}void main(){  int var;  int[] array(1);  funcInOut(var);      // This works   funcInOut(array[0]); // This doesn't}

With objects that support object handles, it is another situation:

struct MyObj{  int prop;};void funcInOut(MyObj &inout a){  a.prop = 0;}void main(){  MyObj var;  MyObj[] array(1);  funcInOut(var);      // This works   funcInOut(array[0]); // This also works}

I'd prefer not to have to limit the reference parameters at all, but in order to guarantee safety (as in sandbox) this is the best I could come up with. If I can improve it further in the future I will.

Regards,
Andreas

##### Share on other sites
I recall you once considered including an 'unsafe' seperate compiling mode that handled references just as 1.x did - the same as C++. What is the status on this?

##### Share on other sites
Maybe you've stated it already somewhere - if so, just point me to it,
but why is the in/out stuff necessary anyway ?

Why not just use the 'normal' syntax,
"int i" means copy it,
"int &i" means it's a reference that can be changed,
"const int &i" means it can't be changed, so it can be copied or treated internally how you like ?

##### Share on other sites
Deyja:

I'm getting closer to implementing this everyday. It may even make it into the final 2.5.0 version.

I'm also planning on adding support for pointers, the same way they work in C++. The pointers would only be available in the 'unsafe' mode, of course.

LDenninger:

I do it this way for compatibility with C++. If AngelScript didn't support native calls to C++ functions I probably wouldn't allow references at all, and only use the object handles for this purpose.

The reason for the in, out, and inout keywords is that AngelScript needs to be able to guarantee the life-time of the references, otherwise it would be possible to end up with dangling pointers. Using these keywords AngelScript will be able to make the best choices based on the need of the developer.

Regards,
Andreas

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by WitchLordDeyja:I'm getting closer to implementing this everyday. It may even make it into the final 2.5.0 version.I'm also planning on adding support for pointers, the same way they work in C++. The pointers would only be available in the 'unsafe' mode, of course.

Hi Andreas,

What's a great news !

I'm confident I didn't upgrade to 2.x (still using 1.x) for that reason. Script users of my tools don't want to worry about such complicated reference counter principles, they just like to get object pointers (or references) and handle it as in C++ (when I explain them such changes, I'm getting many reproaches :)).

I've to say that I really hesitated to switch to another scripting language (despite of the extra work required), because 1.x suffer from some functionnality (such as implicit cast) and 2.x suffer from that strange imposed reference management (this is just my opinion), whereas I really like using AngelScript (until 2.x) for its ease of use in both developper and user point of view. Another solution for me would be to expand 1.x functionnality myself, but it would be really too bad to not continue sharing your great work ! Please help us (1.x users) :)

Lbas

##### Share on other sites
:)

I'm aware that there are quite a few projects out there still using version 1.x because of the lack of direct pointers in AS 2.x. This is the main reason why I will do my best to introduce pointers again.

Regards,
Andreas

##### Share on other sites
I'll add that, though I originally didn't upgrade because of that pointer thing, I've continued to fail to upgrade because of laziness. I could pass everything by value with minimal performance loss anyway. :)

1. 1
Rutin
32
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5

• 13
• 9
• 9
• 9
• 14
• ### Forum Statistics

• Total Topics
633319
• Total Posts
3011342
• ### Who's Online (See full list)

There are no registered users currently online

×