[Issue 7251] GC not working
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251 Leandro Lucarella leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leandro.lucarella@sociomant ||ic.com Resolution|REMIND |DUPLICATE --- Comment #8 from Leandro Lucarella leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com 2013-05-30 04:54:25 PDT --- I think is better to set this as a duplicate of #3463, as when that one gets fixed, this one should be fixed too. *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 3463 *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 7251] GC not working
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251 Rob Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P2 |P4 CC||sandf...@jhu.edu Platform|x86 |All OS/Version|Windows |All Severity|regression |minor --- Comment #7 from Rob Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu 2012-03-04 09:53:01 PST --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) No, it's inevitable that a mark-and-sweep GC on a 32 bit system won't work if large numbers of false pointers are present. And this code: foreach (i; 0 .. count) a ~= i; is flooding the system with false pointers. I think you might have misunderstood the problem, like I originally did. I am ** NOT *** filling the system with false pointers. See David Simcha's comment in response to mine: http://stackoverflow.com/a/8796226/541686 It's inherently defective -- I'm merely _allocating_ a lot of memory, that's all. The rest is a problem with the GC's algorithm. (Unless you expect that no one will allocate one 20-MB chunk of RAM?) The static data segment and the stack generate _always_ contain false pointers. So even if you're not generating them yourself much, they do exist and things will get stuck. Also, direct use of ~= is discouraged; appender is recommended instead and there patch for appender that solves this issue. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 7251] GC not working
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Resolution||INVALID --- Comment #3 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2012-03-01 01:22:39 PST --- (In reply to comment #2) Just wondering, why was this marked as Resolved, Invalid with no comment? Huh? Comment #1 was added when it was closed. Reclosing. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 7251] GC not working
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251 wfunct...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |REMIND --- Comment #4 from wfunct...@hotmail.com 2012-03-01 02:01:33 PST --- (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) Just wondering, why was this marked as Resolved, Invalid with no comment? Huh? Comment #1 was added when it was closed. Reclosing. Wait what? This looks like false pointers [...] We really need precise heap scanning. Doesn't that mean this needs to be fixed? Or is one of us misunderstanding the meaning of the above? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 7251] GC not working
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251 --- Comment #5 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2012-03-01 03:39:55 PST --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) Just wondering, why was this marked as Resolved, Invalid with no comment? Huh? Comment #1 was added when it was closed. Reclosing. Wait what? This looks like false pointers [...] We really need precise heap scanning. Doesn't that mean this needs to be fixed? Or is one of us misunderstanding the meaning of the above? No, it's inevitable that a mark-and-sweep GC on a 32 bit system won't work if large numbers of false pointers are present. And this code: foreach (i; 0 .. count) a ~= i; is flooding the system with false pointers. You marked this as regression, is there any previous compiler where this worked? (reopen if it there is). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 7251] GC not working
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251 --- Comment #6 from wfunct...@hotmail.com 2012-03-01 14:53:44 PST --- (In reply to comment #5) No, it's inevitable that a mark-and-sweep GC on a 32 bit system won't work if large numbers of false pointers are present. And this code: foreach (i; 0 .. count) a ~= i; is flooding the system with false pointers. I think you might have misunderstood the problem, like I originally did. I am ** NOT *** filling the system with false pointers. See David Simcha's comment in response to mine: http://stackoverflow.com/a/8796226/541686 It's inherently defective -- I'm merely _allocating_ a lot of memory, that's all. The rest is a problem with the GC's algorithm. (Unless you expect that no one will allocate one 20-MB chunk of RAM?) You marked this as regression, is there any previous compiler where this worked? (reopen if it there is). I marked it as remind, since I'm sorta reminding about this bug... if that's not the implied meaning then my bad, but this still needs to be fixed. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 7251] GC not working
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251 wfunct...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|INVALID | --- Comment #2 from wfunct...@hotmail.com 2012-02-29 20:08:19 PST --- Just wondering, why was this marked as Resolved, Invalid with no comment? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 7251] GC not working
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251 David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||dsim...@yahoo.com Resolution||INVALID --- Comment #1 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2012-01-09 14:47:00 PST --- This looks like false pointers. testA allocates 48 MB for its largest array on each run. We really need precise heap scanning. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
