Don't worry, I'm getting plenty of naps in during the hour-long hyperbaric sessions I do with Aaron. Which is, good, since we have to get up at 7 to make the morning ones. :) But we're having some fun too. Aaron and I just got back from hanging out at the pool and soaking up some sun. Aaron preferred to lay on the lounge chairs with a shirt over his head, while I did laps around the pool on my Ripstick.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Bruce Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > w00t! Vacation commits FTW! (Just kidding; @Scott: please rest) > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > >> FYI: I just committed the last of my outstanding memory work to trunk. >> Lex kindly agreed to watch the build and do a roll-back for me if something >> breaks. >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Lex Spoon <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> > 5178: Also tightened up the recursive method slightly, and managing >>>> the >>>> > "computed" set better. This works because once a class transitions >>>> from >>>> > hasClinit -> !hasClinit, there's no possible way it can ever go back. >>>> >>>> Small problem: I believe line 644-646 in the patched version is >>>> intended to test "target", not "type". If that sounds right, then the >>>> rest LGTM. Otherwise, let's discuss how this is supposed to work. >>>> >>> >>> Nice catch! I botched a manual inlining of lines 636-641 in the >>> original. >>> >>> >>>> By the way, this algorithm could be sped up if, it mattered for >>>> performance. Instead of repeatedly recursing for each type, start by >>>> marking classes where hasLiveCode() as having clinits. Then, >>>> propagate clinit-ness backwards along the getClinitTargets() graph. >>>> Any class not reached does not needs its clinit. The advantage >>>> probably doesn't matter in this case in practice, but I mention it >>>> because this funny algorithm pattern keeps coming up. >>>> >>> >>> That is a better approach, I'll have to remember that next time I run >>> into this pattern. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Scott >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
