On Jan 15, 2006, at 5:20 AM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
If things have regressed then the regression should be fixed, not
consolidated by forcing the patch to remain in memory.
You can find some of the discussion of the optimisation work from
before
in the archives, incidentally, e.g. around:
http://www.abridgegame.org/pipermail/darcs-devel/2005-April/
001872.html
http://www.abridgegame.org/pipermail/darcs-devel/2005-April/
001938.html
So I tried my test case against 1.0.4 and a version in May 2005. If
this is a regression then it regressed very shortly after being
fixed. I'll assume that it's not a regression and look at how we can
deal with this case.
FWIW, I noticed that the memory already spikes pretty high before any
reading of the patch happens. So I think the code that computes the
patch is already "leaky" in a sense (or maybe it's the code that
writes the patch). I think as a path of debugging I'm going to limit
record so that it computes the patch and see if I can get the leaks
out of that code, then move on to checking for leaks in writing the
patch.
Thanks,
Jason
_______________________________________________
darcs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
