On 31/08/14 01:13, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Emil Velikov
> wrote:
>> On 31/08/14 00:34, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Emil Velikov
>>> wrote:
On 30/08/14 23:02, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> Samplers are only defined up to num_samplers, so
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 31/08/14 00:34, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Emil Velikov
>> wrote:
>>> On 30/08/14 23:02, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
Samplers are only defined up to num_samplers, so set all samplers above
nr to NULL so that w
On 31/08/14 00:34, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Emil Velikov
> wrote:
>> On 30/08/14 23:02, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>> Samplers are only defined up to num_samplers, so set all samplers above
>>> nr to NULL so that we don't try to read them again later.
>>>
>> Would it be wort
On 31/08/14 00:34, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Emil Velikov
> wrote:
>> On 30/08/14 23:02, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>> Samplers are only defined up to num_samplers, so set all samplers above
>>> nr to NULL so that we don't try to read them again later.
>>>
>> Would it be wort
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 30/08/14 23:02, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> Samplers are only defined up to num_samplers, so set all samplers above
>> nr to NULL so that we don't try to read them again later.
>>
> Would it be worth doing a similar thing with the unlocked sample
On 30/08/14 23:02, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> Samplers are only defined up to num_samplers, so set all samplers above
> nr to NULL so that we don't try to read them again later.
>
Would it be worth doing a similar thing with the unlocked samplers below the
nr mark ? It seems to me that we might be leaki
