As can be read at message this upload is only for test purposes,
not for releases.
but if you prefer, we can include it under some MACRO as the same way as
other models of memory management.
By the moment the new system is working perfectly and more quick 30%.
remains only one memory problem but is not caused by the new memory system
and occurs when you do something like this and more than 20 registers:
(cAlias)->( ;
nRecord := RecNo(),;
lLock := .T.,;
DbGoTop(),;
DbEval( {|| lLock := (::cAliasArt)->( lLockRecord( L_MULTIPLELOCK,
{|| (cAlias)->Articulo != FIELD->Articulo } ) ) .AND.;
Eval( bValid ) },;
{|| ! Empty( FIELD->Articulo ) .AND. (::cAliasArt)->( DbSeek(
(cAlias)->Articulo ) ) },;
{|| lLock } ) )
If any body can help so solve this problem, then will be finished new memory
system.
Best regards,
Miguel Angel Marchuet
Andi Jahja escribió:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:51:25 +0100
> Miguel Angel Marchuet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> running speedtst with, we are more near from harbour speed:
>>
>> # define malloc( n ) ( void * ) HeapAlloc( GetProcessHeap(), 0, ( n
>> ) )
>> # define realloc( p, n ) ( void * ) HeapReAlloc( GetProcessHeap(), 0, (
>> void * ) ( p ), ( n ) )
>> # define free( p ) HeapFree( GetProcessHeap(), 0, ( void * ) ( p
>> ) )
>>
> ......
>> s:=f4() -> 32.83
> ....
>> ascan(a,{|x|x==i%ARR_LEN}) -> 6.39
>> ============================================================
>> total application time: 74.34
>> total real time: 75.61
>>
>>
>> with
>>
>> # define malloc( n ) ( void * ) LocalAlloc( LMEM_FIXED, ( n ) )
>> # define realloc( p, n ) ( void * ) LocalReAlloc( ( HLOCAL ) ( p ), ( n
>> ), LMEM_MOVEABLE )
>> # define free( p ) LocalFree( ( HLOCAL ) ( p ) )
>>
> .....
>> s:=f4() -> 59.84
> ....
>> ============================================================
>> total application time: 101.69
>> total real time: 103.66
>>
>> and with harbour :
>>
> .....
>> s:=f4() -> 32.02
> ....
>> ===========================================================
>> total application time: 63.86
>> total real time: 65.33
>>
>
> After all, the most significant speed difference based on the test
> program is on : f4(), which return space(50000) which I don't think a
> good programnmer will call it the way the test program does.
>
> Personally, I'd prefer stability rather that speed of this kind :-)
> --
> Andi
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> _______________________________________________
> xHarbour-developers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xharbour-developers
>
> __________ Información de ESET NOD32 Antivirus, versión de la base de firmas
> de virus 3626 (20081119) __________
>
> ESET NOD32 Antivirus ha comprobado este mensaje.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
xHarbour-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xharbour-developers
