On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 9:05:50 AM UTC+2, Yota Toyama wrote:
>
> Nathan,
>
> As I posted above right after you posted, you are right.
> "Memory leak" was gone when I inserted sleep at the loop end.
> Thank you for your advice!
>
> Yota
>
> On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 10:39:02 AM UTC+9, Nathan
Nathan,
As I posted above right after you posted, you are right.
"Memory leak" was gone when I inserted sleep at the loop end.
Thank you for your advice!
Yota
On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 10:39:02 AM UTC+9, Nathan Fisher wrote:
>
> Hi Yota,
>
> I don't disagree there's value in understanding how
Volker,
Sorry for double posts.
Following your idea, I could fix my code of the 2nd version.
When I insert time.Sleep(SomeTime) at for loop end, everything seems to be
fine.
The threshold of SomeTime is between 100 and 1000.
When it is set to 100, the memory usage grows over time but, when 1000,
Hi Yota,
I don't disagree there's value in understanding how Go handles the
scenario. What I'm not certain of is the potential tradeoffs when
optimising for an uncommon edge case.
The loop you've created is very tight and would be unusual to find in a
typical application. The allocator is moving
Volker,
I don't know if the term "memory leak" is misuse.
But, the 1st version's memory usage is constant but the 2nd version's one
grows over time as if nothing is garbage-collected.
Yota
On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 2:38:08 AM UTC+9, Volker Dobler wrote:
>
> Am Donnerstag, 2. März 2017 17:15:0
Am Donnerstag, 2. März 2017 17:15:05 UTC+1 schrieb Yota Toyama:
>
> Hi, all.
>
> I'm trying to understand argument liveness in Go 1.8.
> As preparation for it, I wrote 2 programs which iterate over infinite
> lists.
> At first, I thought both can be run forever without any memory leak.
> However,
