On Monday, 24 September 2018 at 14:31:45 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
Why is the overhead so big for a single allocation of an array
with elements containing no indirections (which the GC doesn't
need to scan for pointers).
It's not scanning the blocks. But it is scanning the stack.
Ok,
On Friday, 28 September 2018 at 09:14:18 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
How is it possible for the GC to be 500-1000 times slower than
a malloc-free call for a single array containing just bytes
with no indirections for such a simple function!!!?
I really don't understand this...
I change the code
On Monday, 24 September 2018 at 14:31:45 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
ever growing task. And really, this isn't that much (at the
end, you are still less than 1ms).
Compared to GCs like Go's this is an enormous latency for a
single allocation of value elements.
On Thursday, 27 September 2018 at 17:37:43 UTC, hridyansh thakur
wrote:
[snip]
What version of dmd do you use?
On Monday, 24 September 2018 at 14:31:45 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
It's not scanning the blocks. But it is scanning the stack.
Each time you are increasing the space it must search for a
given *target*. It also must *collect* any previous items at
the end of the scan. Note that a collec
On Thursday, 27 September 2018 at 23:53:50 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 9/27/18 8:16 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018 at 14:13:50 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018 at 12:05:21 UTC, Jonathan M
Davis wrote:
If you use -betterC, then it's trivial
On Wednesday, 26 September 2018 at 19:08:45 UTC, Márcio Martins
wrote:
Hi!
I am getting this error when compiling my code as a static
library.
It works fine as an executable. I have no idea what's happening.
Has someone seen something like this before? What could be
different?
This is the e
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 02:08:25PM +, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 September 2018 at 23:53:50 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
[...]
> > Since C initialization functions have no order to them, it's
> > possible that some initialization functions in the D runtim
On Friday, 28 September 2018 at 15:24:03 UTC, Andrea Fontana
wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 September 2018 at 19:08:45 UTC, Márcio Martins
wrote:
Hi!
I am getting this error when compiling my code as a static
library.
It works fine as an executable. I have no idea what's
happening.
Has someone seen
On Wednesday, 23 November 2016 at 08:47:56 UTC, Christian Köstlin
wrote:
On 03/03/2012 18:35, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/03/2012 12:09 PM, Nicolas Silva wrote:
[...]
Yes, this seems to be a bug.
Workaround:
struct Foo{
string s;
Tid id;
}
void foo(){
Foo foo;
receive((Tuple!(s
How does a delegate with a stackpointer work? e.g. in this
example:
https://run.dlang.io/is/XviMSl
Does the second call to foo not overwrite the stack of the first
call and thereby the data pointed to by bar1? How is that data
preserved?
11 matches
Mail list logo
