On 2014-03-21 10:34 AM, Etienne wrote:
It crashes when sz approaches 0x18, it looks like (my best guess)
the resized array doesn't get allocated but the GC still tries to scan it.
Ok I found it in the manual implementation of a malloc-based HashMap.
The right way to debug this was, sadly,
On 2014-03-21 9:36 AM, Etienne wrote:
With ptop= 03D8F030, pbot= 03E4F030
They both point invalid memory. It looks like a really wide range too,
the usual would be 037CCB80 -> 037CCBA0 or such. I don't know how to
find out where they come from... Maybe I could do an assert on that
specific value
On 2014-03-21 2:53 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Friday, 21 March 2014 at 00:56:22 UTC, Etienne wrote:
I'm trying to store a copy of strings for long-running processes with
malloc. I tried using emplace but the copy gets deleted by the GC. Any
idea why?
Could you show the snippet where you used
On Friday, 21 March 2014 at 00:56:22 UTC, Etienne wrote:
I'm trying to store a copy of strings for long-running
processes with malloc. I tried using emplace but the copy gets
deleted by the GC. Any idea why?
Could you show the snippet where you used "emplace"? I'd like to
know how you are usi
On 2014-03-20 21:46, Etienne Cimon wrote:
On 2014-03-20 21:08, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 21 March 2014 at 00:56:22 UTC, Etienne wrote:
I tried using emplace but the copy gets deleted by the GC. Any idea why?
That's extremely unlikely, the GC doesn't know how to free manually
allocated t
On 2014-03-20 21:08, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 21 March 2014 at 00:56:22 UTC, Etienne wrote:
I tried using emplace but the copy gets deleted by the GC. Any idea why?
That's extremely unlikely, the GC doesn't know how to free manually
allocated things. Are you sure that's where the crash
On Friday, 21 March 2014 at 00:56:22 UTC, Etienne wrote:
I tried using emplace but the copy gets deleted by the GC. Any
idea why?
That's extremely unlikely, the GC doesn't know how to free
manually allocated things. Are you sure that's where the crash
happens?
Taking a really quick look at
On 2014-03-20 8:39 PM, bearophile wrote:
Etienne:
I'm running some tests on a cache store where I planned to use only
Malloc for the values being stored, I'm hoping to eliminate the GC in
95% of the program, but to keep it only for actively used items..
Usually 95%-100% of a D program uses th
Etienne:
I'm running some tests on a cache store where I planned to use
only Malloc for the values being stored, I'm hoping to
eliminate the GC in 95% of the program, but to keep it only for
actively used items..
Usually 95%-100% of a D program uses the GC and the 0%-5% uses
malloc :-)
By
On Thursday, 20 March 2014 at 20:48:18 UTC, Etienne wrote:
I'm running some tests on a cache store where I planned to use
only Malloc for the values being stored, I'm hoping to
eliminate the GC in 95% of the program, but to keep it only for
actively used items..
My problem is: when the progra
I'm running some tests on a cache store where I planned to use only
Malloc for the values being stored, I'm hoping to eliminate the GC in
95% of the program, but to keep it only for actively used items..
My problem is: when the program reaches 40MB it suddenly goes down to
0.9MB and blocks.
11 matches
Mail list logo
