On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 09:07:56PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
I'm resending this old patch of Jason's as a reminder.
...
I am definitely in favour of this patch, but I would like to know:
- how it impacts memory usage of pull (as opposed to record, where it
certainly helps);
-
I'm resending this old patch of Jason's as a reminder.
Please see issue 80 and
http://www.abridgegame.org/pipermail/darcs-devel/2006-January/thread.html#3952
for a discussion of what this is about.
I am definitely in favour of this patch, but I would like to know:
- how it impacts memory
That said, it seems Jason's numbers are including mmapped files, so
it's not clear exactly what's going on.
Yes the previous numbers did include mmap and I hadn't realized it
was important to exclude mmap'd data.
I'm not so sure about that. The only difference between file-backed
and
On Jan 16, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
That said, it seems Jason's numbers are including mmapped files, so
it's
not clear exactly what's going on.
Yes the previous numbers did include mmap and I hadn't realized it
was important to exclude mmap'd data. Using Ian's memory
Sat Jan 14 04:22:52 PST 2006 Jason Dagit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Do not reread freshly written patch when recording.
I've looked at the code again -- and I'm puzzled. I s'pose it's
linesPS biting us again.
The experimental results are definitely promising, but there's
obviously something going
On Jan 16, 2006, at 8:09 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
Sat Jan 14 04:22:52 PST 2006 Jason Dagit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Do not reread freshly written patch when recording.
I've looked at the code again -- and I'm puzzled. I s'pose it's
linesPS biting us again.
Maybe, I had at least one
Hmm..Sending this with darcs send --unified prevented darcs from
letting me add a description (a setting which is set in my global
darcs prefs).
What I wanted to say is, I'm sending the patch for the email I just
commented on. I tested the this change with the testsuite and
everything
