Re: Questions about Px registers and memory usage [PATCH]
Peter Gibbs wrote: Clinton A. Pierce wrote: LOOP: new P1, .PerlHash branch LOOP This is simply a long-standing GC bug. Try the attached patch and see if it helps. Thanks for clarifying this. Actually, when introducing GC_IS_MALLOC I was bug compatible too ;-) Patch included in Parrot_destroy. leo
Re: Questions about Px registers and memory usage [PATCH]
Clinton A. Pierce wrote: > LOOP: new P1, .PerlHash > branch LOOP > What happens is that memory gets chewed up > quickly. Do I have the wrong idea of how the Px registers are used to point > to things (god, I hope not) or is there some GC that needs to happen that > isn't (and I can expect it to vanish eventually)? This is simply a long-standing GC bug. Try the attached patch and see if it helps. -- Peter Gibbs EmKel Systems dod.patch Description: Binary data
Questions about Px registers and memory usage
I'm in the middle of a rather large project, and stopped to do a memory
usage sanity check. To my surprise I found a leak and traced it back to
the way I was allocating PerlHashes and whatnot.
To boil it down further, look at this PASM:
LOOP: new P1, .PerlHash
branch LOOP
What I'd *expect* is that this would have a steady-state, as each new
PerlHash is created it bashes the pointer to the previous PerlHash in
P1. The old PerlHash would then get garbage collected and after the second
iteration I'd reach a steady-state for memory usage. Kinda like this Perl:
LOOP: $t={};
goto LOOP;
Only that ain't how it works. What happens is that memory gets chewed up
quickly. Do I have the wrong idea of how the Px registers are used to point
to things (god, I hope not) or is there some GC that needs to happen that
isn't (and I can expect it to vanish eventually)?
