On 2010/10/03 04:52:35, joeneeman wrote:
I was just waiting to see if the memory problems are still there. I
can't
reproduce them (and it seems that Neil can't either any more) so I'm
not
sure what to do. I could just push it and then revert if people
howl...
I'm still not sure what was go
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:01 AM, wrote:
> Has this patch been pushed, or definitely rejected, or is it waiting for
> when Joe has some spare time (probably 2011 :) ?
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/1817045/
>
I was just waiting to see if the memory problems are still there. I can't
reproduce th
Has this patch been pushed, or definitely rejected, or is it waiting for
when Joe has some spare time (probably 2011 :) ?
http://codereview.appspot.com/1817045/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinf
On 2010/07/31 10:59:28, arnonokia6230 wrote:
Hm, i am seeing huge memory problems here. What is the trick finally?
I don't know; following my initial `make check' run which swallowed all
the memory, I haven't had any problems, even with large files.
Can you post a test file which still shows
On 2010/07/23 21:49:50, Neil Puttock wrote:
Hi Joe,
I haven't been able to replicate the problems I had running `make
check', even
with the hash table default set to 1000; I guess that means LGTM. :)
Cheers,
Neil
http://codereview.appspot.com/1817045/diff/10001/11001
File lily/axis-gro
Hi Joe,
I haven't been able to replicate the problems I had running `make
check', even with the hash table default set to 1000; I guess that means
LGTM. :)
Cheers,
Neil
http://codereview.appspot.com/1817045/diff/10001/11001
File lily/axis-group-interface.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.
On 2010/07/22 20:45:12, joeneeman wrote:
Wait, you mean that you're running it with 1000 and not having
problems now?
That certainly seems the case. I'm just doing a clean build now to
verify.
http://codereview.appspot.com/1817045/show
___
lilyp
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:09 PM, wrote:
> On 2010/07/21 21:04:38, Neil Puttock wrote:
>
> Ah, don't worry, I think I see what's going on. It's creating a new
>>
> hash table
>
>> whenever the method's called:
>>
>
> + if (!to_boolean (scm_hash_table_p (pure_height_cache)))
>>
>
> This is alwa
On 2010/07/21 21:04:38, Neil Puttock wrote:
Ah, don't worry, I think I see what's going on. It's creating a new
hash table
whenever the method's called:
+ if (!to_boolean (scm_hash_table_p (pure_height_cache)))
This is always true.
I think it should be
if (scm_hash_table_p (pure_h
On 2010/07/21 20:16:56, joeneeman wrote:
I can change it to 100, but it's still a bit worrying that a few
measly hash
tables end up taking so much memory (there should only be one per
staff).
Ah, don't worry, I think I see what's going on. It's creating a new
hash table whenever the method'
Reviewers: lemzwerg, Neil Puttock,
Message:
On 2010/07/15 22:04:58, Neil Puttock wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/1817045/diff/1/2
File lily/axis-group-interface.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/1817045/diff/1/2#newcode125
lily/axis-group-interface.cc:125: pure_height_cache =
sc
On 2010/07/14 23:15:13, lemzwerg wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/1817045/diff/1/4
File scm/define-grob-properties.scm (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/1817045/diff/1/4#newcode1059
scm/define-grob-properties.scm:1059:
Since the properties in this file are sorted alphabetically, this
http://codereview.appspot.com/1817045/diff/1/2
File lily/axis-group-interface.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/1817045/diff/1/2#newcode125
lily/axis-group-interface.cc:125: pure_height_cache =
scm_c_make_hash_table (1000);
This default size appears to be too big (at least for my poor co
http://codereview.appspot.com/1817045/diff/1/4
File scm/define-grob-properties.scm (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/1817045/diff/1/4#newcode1059
scm/define-grob-properties.scm:1059:
Since the properties in this file are sorted alphabetically, this is the
wrong place...
http://codereview.a
14 matches
Mail list logo
