Josh Wilmes wrote:
For the meantime, I have added the Parrot_exit and Parrot_on_exit functions
to CVS.
Thanks for providing this. I did slightly modify your patch to really
get rid of the leaks:
- test_main calls Parrot_exit now
- copied prototype to embed.h
leo
If no one hollers, I'll remove the IntQueue class.
- only used in some tests AFAIK
- functionality may be written in terms of intlist push/pop
- has a weird syntax for queue/dequeue
- is broken WRT memory management and clone
leo
For the meantime, I have added the Parrot_exit and Parrot_on_exit functions
to CVS.
This will fix the leak on all platforms, for now. If you want to fix
internal_exception so this isn't necessary, that's fine- we can rip this
out later.
--Josh
At 22:21 on 11/06/2002 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <
Peter Gibbs wrote:
An extended version of my previous example follows, as it points
out some more inconsistent behaviour.
Here is a simple example, which shows inconsistent WRT strings:
set S0, "not"
set S1, S0
set S0, "ok"
print S1
print "\n"
new P0, .PerlString
s
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Appended is a test program that shows timings (i386 w rdtsc) and
> the limit, where malloc changes strategy to use mmap and returns
> zeroed memory.
I don't know if it helps, but there are the results on my machine,
using Windows XP Pro and Cygwin 1.3.10 and GCC 2.95.3:
#
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Appended is a test program
Arg, damned Mozilla, shows attachment and doesn't include it
/* test program for malloc */
/* run program with
* cc -o chkm -Wall chkm.c -O3 && ./chkm
* cc -o chkm -Wall chkm.c malloc.c -O3 && ./chkm
*
* the timing macro needs adjustment f
Brent Dax wrote:
Leopold Toetsch:
# The questions are (and this is IMHO the same problem with PMCs):
# - set vs assign
# - what should this program do
This idea may be totally on crack, but why do we even have S and P
registers as pointers? What if the S registers were basically just
STRING[32]
Peter Gibbs wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Fine. But how do we know, which version we could take. Please read again
Peter's example. It depends on the semantics of Sx register usage all
over the program IMHO.
In an attempt to clarify the positions here, let us start with a shorter
example:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 8:58 PM +0100 11/6/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
If we want this, then lets have Parrot_{re,}allocate{,zeroed}.
The allocate_string variants are ok with unzeroed mem already.
Which was my thought here. Things that care can ask for zeroed memory,
which they may get anyw
Leopold Toetsch:
# The questions are (and this is IMHO the same problem with PMCs):
# - set vs assign
# - what should this program do
This idea may be totally on crack, but why do we even have S and P
registers as pointers? What if the S registers were basically just
STRING[32] and the Ps were PM
10 matches
Mail list logo
