Dan, Here is something, not strictly memory related, that doesn't work right now, that probably should:
class XML::Node
attr_reader :extra
attr_writer :extra
end
parent = XML::Node.new('parent')
child = XML::Node.new('child')
parent.extra = 'wibble'
parent.child = child
puts parent.extra # There it is
puts child.parent.extra # Huh, where'd it go?
I discovered this a couple of days ago. My app extends XML::Node quite
significantly so this is of some concern to me.
Also, if you'd like to send me your latest code, I'd be pleased to run
it aginst my app as a sanity check. I'm afraid that I'm not prepared to
put my app into the wild yet as the quality of the code is still too
embarassing.
__
Marc
On Tue, 2007-28-08 at 20:36 -0400, Dan Janowski wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am going to go out on a limb and say, tentatively, that my new
> approach to memory management is working. It is so far only applied
> to the ruby side of tree.c functions (ruby_xml_node...). My simple
> example of creating the same document 1M times, loosing references to
> the priors and watching the mark and free run, is at least no worse.
>
> Since I have not propagated the changes to other parts, the test
> suite is broken. I suspect that they did not expose the memory
> problems anyway.
>
> What I need now is a few concise examples that have blown up
> previously. I am particularly looking for ones that just use the node
> operations.
>
> Looking forward to your dastardly tests.
>
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> libxml-devel mailing list
> libxml-devel@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ libxml-devel mailing list libxml-devel@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
