[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 j...@red.email.ne.jp changed: What|Removed |Added CC||j...@red.email.ne.jp --- Comment #23

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 Dmitry Olshansky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 --- Comment #22 from Jack Stouffer --- https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/5115 --

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 Jack Stouffer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||j...@jackstouffer.com

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 Jon Degenhardt changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 Andrei Alexandrescu changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||bootcamp --

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 --- Comment #21 from Andrei Alexandrescu --- What's the status of this? --

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 Issue 5813 depends on issue 5233, which changed state. Issue 5233 Summary: [patch] std.range.put accepts *any* element type when putting to an array. https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5233 What|Removed

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 --- Comment #19 from Rob Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu 2012-03-19 14:02:01 PDT --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/502 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc ---

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 --- Comment #15 from Rob Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu 2012-01-02 12:02:40 PST --- Vladimir, the code in https://github.com/CyberShadow/ae/blob/master/utils/appender.d seems to be under the MPL, which isn't Phobos compatible. What license is the

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 --- Comment #16 from Vladimir Panteleev thecybersha...@gmail.com 2012-01-02 12:10:18 PST --- (In reply to comment #15) Vladimir, the code in https://github.com/CyberShadow/ae/blob/master/utils/appender.d seems to be under the MPL, which

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 --- Comment #17 from Rob Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu 2012-01-02 13:16:19 PST --- That said, I did write a faster chained appender for your benchmarks; however I did this by initializing the appender with a page of memory, which definitely

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 --- Comment #18 from Vladimir Panteleev thecybersha...@gmail.com 2012-01-02 13:32:01 PST --- (In reply to comment #17) For part 1 (fastest possible 'chained' appender): Simply construct specifying a large number of elements. i.e. auto app

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 --- Comment #14 from Vladimir Panteleev thecybersha...@gmail.com 2011-12-29 22:28:34 PST --- My code is more of a research project. It can't be safely copied, only supports items 1 byte in size, and doesn't care much in terms of UTF encoding.

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 --- Comment #12 from Vladimir Panteleev thecybersha...@gmail.com 2011-12-28 14:56:17 PST --- I spent some more time working on an optimized appender. Things I found: 1) Extra indirection levels are performance killers 2) I failed to create a

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 Vladimir Panteleev thecybersha...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 --- Comment #7 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2011-12-02 04:49:25 PST --- I think we were waiting on Rob to change this into a pull request. Not sure if that's going to happen? -- Configure issuemail:

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 --- Comment #8 from Rob Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu 2011-12-02 05:38:25 PST --- I'm planning on putting in a pull request for this, probably sometime over the Christmas holidays(I hope). Currently, I'm in the middle of finishing up my Ph.D. thesis

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 --- Comment #9 from Vladimir Panteleev thecybersha...@gmail.com 2011-12-02 10:33:44 PST --- I did some benchmarks with this and some other variants. At least for small strings, this code performs worse than the current appender. Judging by

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 --- Comment #10 from Rob Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu 2011-12-02 12:35:48 PST --- (In reply to comment #9) I did some benchmarks with this and some other variants. At least for small strings, this code performs worse than the current

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 --- Comment #11 from Rob Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu 2011-12-02 21:10:23 PST --- I did some more digging. I reworked the put routine itself and changed the growth strategy to be as aggressive as the original appender. This got me down from a 52%

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 --- Comment #2 from Rob Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu 2011-06-09 11:11:16 PDT --- This patch passes the unittests listed in Issue 5663 - std.array.Appender.put bug -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 --- Comment #5 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2011-06-09 14:22:32 PDT --- (In reply to comment #4) The obfuscation generally comes from a desire to minimize multi-lines to one-liners. I don't mind the one-liners, but things

[Issue 5813] [patch] std.array.Appender has severe performance and memory leak problems.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813 --- Comment #1 from Rob Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu 2011-05-20 10:29:57 PDT --- *Update* The previous version ended up having value semantics, not reference semantics, due to the fact _tail wouldn't get updated and later nodes would be ignored.