I found this quite interesting. The upshot is that they measure perf.
of state-of-the-art GC vs RC and finds the latter to be about 30%
slower. However, they also figure out where it's slower, and apply
some simple optimizations bringing it to roughly on-par with GC, perf.
wise. I'm thinking that
Am I right that this information is type of memory leak report? If it is true,
is it possible to find time of memory allocation?
Information example:
- - (28 bytes from 0x7fbb9b415320)
+0 +4 +8 +c0 4 8 c
+ 1c 1e 1f
On 05/01/2012 12:53 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Sebastian Sylvan:
R. Shahriyar, S. M. Blackburn, and D. Frampton, Down for the Count?
Getting Reference Counting Back in the Ring, in Proceedings of the
Eleventh ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on Memory Management,
ISMM ‘12, Beijing, China,
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Matthieu Monrocq
matthieu.monr...@gmail.com wrote:
As a consequence, I am unsure of the impact this article should have on
Rust's GC design. The implementation strategies presented are very clear and
the advantages/drawbacks clearly outlined, which is great (big
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Sebastian Sylvan sebastian.syl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Matthieu Monrocq
matthieu.monr...@gmail.com wrote:
As a consequence, I am unsure of the impact this article should have on
Rust's GC design. The implementation strategies
On 5/1/12 8:59 AM, Matthieu Monrocq wrote:
I agree that the technics outlined, especially with the details on their
advantages/drawbacks are a very interesting read.
As for the predictable timing, anyway it seems hard to have something
predictable when you take cycle of references into account:
Unfortunately, I didn't caught your idea with with_fixture :( I have next
situation, may be you have an idea how to fix it:
I need to allocate unique TCP ports numbers for each test. In case of C/C++
solution is extreamly easy: create singleton or static variable and just
atomically increase
- Original Message -
From: Alexander Stavonin a.stavo...@gmail.com
To: Brian Anderson bander...@mozilla.com
Cc: rust-dev@mozilla.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 5:18:56 PM
Subject: Re: [rust-dev] Testing facility and shared data
Unfortunately, I didn't caught your idea with
Also, you can just listen on port 0 and the os will pick a random,
unused port for you.
On Tue May 1 20:02:31 2012, Brian Anderson wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Alexander Stavonin a.stavo...@gmail.com
To: Brian Anderson bander...@mozilla.com
Cc: rust-dev@mozilla.org
Sent:
I suppose that singleton tasks is the only way in this case. At least
because of current testing facilities are usefull just for unit testing,
but not for complex module testing, and in case of complex test cases we
need to share some information between components. Also it will be needed
in
On 5/1/12 8:02 PM, Brian Anderson wrote:
3) We can come up with a public API to create global, singleton tasks, possibly
with the following signatures:
unsafe fn register_named_serviceT(n: str, f: fn~(portT))
unsafe fn get_named_serviceT(n: str) - chanT
This would, if the named
11 matches
Mail list logo
