[#14696] Inconsistency in rescuability of "return" — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>

Why can you not rescue return, break, etc when they are within

21 messages 2008/01/02
[#14699] Re: Inconsistency in rescuability of "return" — Gary Wright <gwtmp01@...> 2008/01/02

[#14738] Enumerable#zip Needs Love — James Gray <james@...>

The community has been building a Ruby 1.9 compatibility tip list on

15 messages 2008/01/03
[#14755] Re: Enumerable#zip Needs Love — Martin Duerst <duerst@...> 2008/01/04

Hello James,

[#14772] Manual Memory Management — Pramukta Kumar <prak@...>

I was thinking it would be nice to be able to free large objects at

36 messages 2008/01/04
[#14788] Re: Manual Memory Management — Marcin Raczkowski <mailing.mr@...> 2008/01/05

I would only like to add that RMgick for example provides free method to

[#14824] Re: Manual Memory Management — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2008/01/07

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 15:49:30 +0900, Marcin Raczkowski <mailing.mr@gmail.com> wrote:

[#14825] Re: Manual Memory Management — "Evan Weaver" <evan@...> 2008/01/07

Python supports 'del reference', which decrements the reference

[#14838] Re: Manual Memory Management — Marcin Raczkowski <mailing.mr@...> 2008/01/08

Evan Weaver wrote:

[#14911] Draft of some pages about encoding in Ruby 1.9 — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

Folks:

24 messages 2008/01/10

[#14976] nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — David Flanagan <david@...>

The following just appeared in the ChangeLog

37 messages 2008/01/11
[#14977] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/01/11

Hi,

[#14978] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/01/11

[#14979] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/01/11

Dave Thomas wrote:

[#14993] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/01/11

[#14980] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Gary Wright <gwtmp01@...> 2008/01/11

[#14981] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/01/11

Hi,

[#14995] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/01/11

Yukihiro Matsumoto writes:

[#15050] how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Phlip <phlip2005@...>

Core Rubies:

17 messages 2008/01/13
[#15060] Re: how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2008/01/14

On Jan 13, 2008, at 08:54 AM, Phlip wrote:

[#15062] Re: how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Phlip <phlip2005@...> 2008/01/14

Eric Hodel wrote:

[#15073] Re: how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2008/01/14

On Jan 13, 2008, at 20:35 PM, Phlip wrote:

[#15185] Friendlier methods to compare two Time objects — "Jim Cropcho" <jim.cropcho@...>

Hello,

10 messages 2008/01/22

[#15194] Can large scale projects be successful implemented around a dynamic programming language? — Jordi <mumismo@...>

A good article I have found (may have been linked by slashdot, don't know)

8 messages 2008/01/24

[#15248] Symbol#empty? ? — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi --

24 messages 2008/01/28
[#15250] Re: Symbol#empty? ? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/01/28

Hi,

Re: Manual Memory Management

From: Pramukta Kumar <prak@...>
Date: 2008-01-04 21:17:09 UTC
List: ruby-core #14777
ah okay.  I think I understand the concerns.  would the dangling  
pointer issue be corrected by the next GC run if I could manually mark  
the freed (and recycled object)?

the motivation for this was that I found myself in a situation where I  
had to load up large objects from time to time within a long running  
process but I only had to use each of them for a short period of  
time.  the process normally doesn't need very much memory but during  
those moments it does.  based on some experimentation (and consistent  
with the explanation here I think: http://whytheluckystiff.net/articles/theFullyUpturnedBin.html) 
  it seemed that the garbage collector would only run when the next  
large object was larger than the previous large object, and the ruby  
process retained its large memory footprint throughout.  calling the  
GC manually after each large object went out of scope seemed like an  
excessive amount of work for ruby to do.

~mookie

On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:41 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:

> On Jan 4, 2008 1:25 PM, Pramukta Kumar <prak@fortiusone.com> wrote:
>> I was thinking it would be nice to be able to free large objects at
>> will without making ruby go through the full garbage collection
>> process each time.  Basically to have the ability to optionally  
>> manage
>> your own memory (kindof).  I tried adding this singleton method to  
>> the
>> GC module as a test:
>>
>> in gc.c:
>> static VALUE rb_obj_free(VALUE self, VALUE obj) {
>>        obj_free(obj);
>>        rb_gc_force_recycle(obj);
>>        return Qnil;
>> }
>>
>> and exposing it as GC.free(obj) in the init function
>>
>> It seems to actually work (except when you try and free a nil
>> object).  I'm no expert on ruby internals though so I'm worried that
>> i'm actually creating a severe problem by doing this.  Does anyone
>> here know?  If this (or something similar) does work it seems like a
>> really cool feature to add.  I've attached a patchfile.
>
> On the surface, this seems like a horrible idea.
>
> You're basically yanking the object out from under any references to
> it that there might be, creating, in effect dangling pointers.
>
> The whole point of a GC, it seems to me, is to avoid this situation by
> ensuring that objects are not recycled as long as they can be
> referenced.
>
> -- 
> Rick DeNatale
>
> My blog on Ruby
> http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
>


In This Thread