CGAL users discussion list

[Taus Møller <>]

I think you are probably right. It seems that when doing interop with
native C++ it is suggested that calls across the interop boundary is
kept to a minimum. However, since large parts of CGAL is written in
headers, it is hard to establish a clear boundary between managed and
unmanaged code. I am currently trying to figure out if it is possible
and if there is anything to gain by forcing native compilation of
CGAL.

On 14 January 2016 at 18:43, Marius Kintel 
<>
 wrote:
> It’s been a while since I tested this, but I seem to remember that the 
> majority of CPU time was spent doing Gmpq memory management. I’m not 
> familiar with CLR, but it wouldn’t surprise me if memory management causes 
> significant CLR overhead.
>
>  -Marius
>
>> On Jan 14, 2016, at 04:08 AM, Sebastien Loriot (GeometryFactory) 
>> <>
>>  wrote:
>>
>> The increase of the runtime is due to the fact that your input are 
>> identical which leads to many filter failures.
>>
>> No idea about the CLR, I've never tried.
>>
>> Sebastien.
>
>
> --
> You are currently subscribed to cgal-discuss.
> To unsubscribe or access the archives, go to
> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/info/cgal-discuss
>
>



-- 
Regards
Taus Møller
Software Developer, Apiosoft