Thanks, Ray (and Bruce). I showed Anna this thread and she totally ROFLed. Then she told me if I don't stop working you guys really will need an insurance policy on me. ;)
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Ray Cromwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > I hope Google takes out an extra insurance policy so that should an > accident occur, they can cryogenically freeze your brain and thaw you out in > the future in case there are any outstanding compiler issues no one has been > able to fix. :) > -Ray > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
