Hi,
I'm testing some old elaboration that cycles on a large datatable and
for every rows makes several selections on separated datatables.
This elaboration is really slow on mono and fast on MS.NET, let say
400secs vs 4 secs.
It seems that last rows are slower that first rows.
I made some test o
I pretty much found I just had to not return a dataset but just a string (or
something searializable)
doublejay57 wrote:
>
> Has this been solved because I also have the same exact problem.
>
>
> davbman wrote:
>>
>> I just started working with Mono-Developer for the first time.
>> I have a
The overall patch looks good, but some small changes must be done before the
patch can be committed:
@@ -1489,8 +1489,73 @@
}
#endif /* UNUSED_CODE */
+#ifdef PLATFORM_MACOSX
+#include
+#include
+
Move header declarations to the top of the file. It doesn't matter we have other
place with th
Hey,
On 12/2/09, Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
> The patch looks good, my only concern is how does it interact with UT
> supplied methods?
>
> Do you mind testing MS behavior with non system ParamInfo objects?
I sure don't, but I'd say let's cross one one bridge at a time. The
patch doesn't break any c
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Jb Evain wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On 12/2/09, Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
> > The patch looks good, my only concern is how does it interact with UT
> > supplied methods?
> >
> > Do you mind testing MS behavior with non system ParamInfo objects?
>
> I sure don't, but I'd say
Rodrigo,
Thanks for the feedback. Here¹s an updated patch.
Again, this is X11 MIT Licensed.
Tom
On 12/2/09 4:30 AM, "Rodrigo Kumpera" wrote:
> The overall patch looks good, but some small changes must be done before the
> patch can be committed:
>
>
> @@ -1489,8 +1489,73 @@
> }
> #endif
No, could you fill a bug report on this to avoid getting it lost on the
mailing list archives?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Daniel Weuthen <
daniel.weuthen...@deepinvent.com> wrote:
> Hi Rodrigo,
>
> anything new about this one?
>
> --
> regards
>
> Daniel Weuthen
> __
Hello,
> No, could you fill a bug report on this to avoid getting it lost on
> the mailing list archives?
I spoke today with Daniel on the phone and looked at these errors;
Sadly with the information posted there is not much that we can do to
find the problem.
I have asked Daniel to provide us w
Submit them separatedly, because the commits should be split anyway.
And please, don't put the patch inline in the email body.
Thanks,
Rodrigo
2009/11/1 Kornél Pál
> I found out that reference counting in mono_image_close_except_pools was
> broken so I fixed that as well.
>
> Double freeing wa
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Erven Rohou wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a few questions about inlining:
>
> - I am curious what the heuristics are. I looked at the function
> mono_method_check_inlining, but even when the function returns TRUE, the
> function might not be inlined. Could you point
Thanks for the patch, Miguel applied it.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Tom Philpot wrote:
> Rodrigo,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Here’s an updated patch.
>
> Again, this is X11 MIT Licensed.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> On 12/2/09 4:30 AM, "Rodrigo Kumpera" wrote:
>
> The overall patch looks good, but
Hello,
Do you have a test case to reproduce this issue, which you could share with
the Mono team ?
Thanks
Nagappan
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:05 AM, APS wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm testing some old elaboration that cycles on a large datatable and
> for every rows makes several selections on separated d
Stephen,
Did this patch ever get committed?
Thanks,
Tom
On 11/26/09 5:23 AM, "Stephane Delcroix" wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 15:04 -0800, Tom Philpot wrote:
>> > Here's a patch that resolves an issue of adding or subtracting time from a
>> > DateTime which crosses the DST boundary.
>
> Th
Hello,
> The overall patch looks good, but some small changes must be done
> before the patch can be committed:
In addition to these comments, I fail to see the point of the do/while
loop, it seems to not be used at all. Can you explain the reason for
it? I might be missing something importan
Hello,
I have this local version of the patch that fixes a leak in case the
process loops (it was leaking result).
> Rodrigo,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Here’s an updated patch.
>
> Again, this is X11 MIT Licensed.
>
> Tom
>
>
> On 12/2/09 4:30 AM, "Rodrigo Kumpera" wrote:
>
>
Hello,
I forgot to mention, I switched the code to use malloc/free to avoid
g_malloc asserting on us, and instead I cope with the NULL from malloc.
> Rodrigo,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Here’s an updated patch.
>
> Again, this is X11 MIT Licensed.
>
> Tom
>
>
> On 12/2/09 4:30 AM, "Rod
The purpose of the loop is because if sysctl fails to alloc enough space in
the second call, proclength is set to the length of data returned, not to
the length of the data that could/should have been returned, so we have to
start over again by passing NULL to sysctl to determine how big proclength
17 matches
Mail list logo
