I'm issuing the PR in a few minutes, it looks like this:
(I also fixed a small bug with realloc's counting)
```julia
ASCII convert to UTF-16
elapsed time: 8.441981477 seconds (1000 allocations, 5000 MB allocated,
2.94% gc time in 222 pauses with 0 full sweep)
```
Does that look like acceptable output?
Thanks, Scott
On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 11:09:43 PM UTC-4, Jameson wrote:
>
> You could, but it wouldn't significantly improve the items that I
> mentioned.
>
> If someone is interested in opening an issue / PR, I think that reporting
> of the number of allocation events would be more useful ("N bytes allocated
> for M objects"), since the performance cost is likely more directly
> correlated to the number of allocations rather than their cumulative size.
> It would also probably be a good "up for grabs"-type project.
>
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:55 PM Scott Jones <[email protected]
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> Would it be possible to force a garbage collection at the beginning of
>> @time to prevent that issue?
>> The maximum memory used would be very useful information for me...
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 10:21:46 PM UTC-4, Jameson wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect including bytes freed may be much more misleading than leaving
>>> it out.
>>>
>>> Bytes allocated between to points in time is easy to calculate and easy
>>> to understand since it is a simple summation operation. Conversely, bytes
>>> freed depends on the gc heuristics in use, and not as strongly correlated
>>> to the program. We could instead try to give the maximum memory in use by
>>> the program at any intermediate gc point, but that also has most of the
>>> same pitfalls as trying to calculate the bytes freed (since it is unclear
>>> whether to count memory that was allocated prior to the call but that
>>> became collected as garbage sometime before the `@time` call returned,
>>> under the assumption that a gc call occurred).
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:21 PM Scott Jones <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1, yes, definitely!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 8:28:17 PM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we should include bytes freed as well.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On May 1, 2015, at 8:15 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 2:45:16 AM UTC+10, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that makes much more sense! So it's really "byte allocations"
>>>>>> rather than "bytes allocated". Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Its bytes allocated not bytes in use.
>>>>>
>>>>> bytes in use = bytes allocated - bytes freed
>>>>>
>>>>>
