[#1207] warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...>

This message was posted to ruby-talk, but I didn't get responce from

22 messages 2003/07/01
[#1208] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/01

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:

[#1209] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...> 2003/07/02

ts wrote:

[#1210] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/02

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:

[#1211] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...> 2003/07/04

ts wrote:

[#1212] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/04

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:

[#1213] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...> 2003/07/04

ts wrote:

[#1214] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/04

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:

[#1215] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...> 2003/07/04

ts wrote:

[#1237] FTP.new with block — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>

Hi,

22 messages 2003/07/19
[#1238] Re: [Patch] FTP.new with block — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/19

>>>>> "G" == Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> writes:

[#1240] Re: [Patch] FTP.new with block — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/07/19

[#1297] Fix for Bug 1058 — Markus Walser <walser@...>

Hi,

16 messages 2003/07/25

Re: stack problem

From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2003-07-23 01:47:03 UTC
List: ruby-core #1282
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:

> At Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:11:10 +0900,
> Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> > I don't know what makes you think that rounding by pagesize might be
> > better: it is not quite obvious to me. So I would enjoy an explanation.
> Just it would be faster.  No matter.

Ok, for the speed improvement, I'm not convinced, unless someone finds a
way to be forced to call ruby_init after a multi-megabyte ALLOCA, but I
can't see that ever taking more than a few millisecs.

Next, my concern is this:

  volatile char *p = bp - size;
  (void)*p;

Is this resistant to heavy optimisation? I mean, (void)*p can be reduced
to nothingness, despite the volatility of the target data. I was writing
to a volatile dummy variable using the result from the read, to ensure
that the read was being done.

Maybe I don't completely know what "volatile" is supposed to mean (?)

________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard                       http://artengine.ca/matju


In This Thread