Re: [racket] bitmap% size in memory

2012-12-19 Thread Matthew Flatt
t; checks? > >> The reason I started looking into this was that DrRacket kept running > >> out of memory > >> and closing down without a warning (even with a memory limit set to 512 > >> MB). > >> So to me it seems that for current-memory-use and DrRacket&#x

Re: [racket] bitmap% size in memory

2012-12-19 Thread Michael Wilber
limit check >> this trick doesn't really work. But maybe this is not the intended >> purpose of the >> shadow byte-string. >> >> Bert >> >> >> > From: mfl...@cs.utah.edu >> > To: bed...@hotmail.com >> > CC: users@racket-lang.o

Re: [racket] bitmap% size in memory

2012-12-19 Thread Neil Toronto
ut maybe this is not the intended purpose of the shadow byte-string. Bert > From: mfl...@cs.utah.edu > To: bed...@hotmail.com > CC: users@racket-lang.org > Subject: Re: [racket] bitmap% size in memory > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:11:24 -0700 > > The "shadow" b

Re: [racket] bitmap% size in memory

2012-12-19 Thread Bert De Ketelaere
Bert > From: mfl...@cs.utah.edu > To: bed...@hotmail.com > CC: users@racket-lang.org > Subject: Re: [racket] bitmap% size in memory > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:11:24 -0700 > > The "shadow" byte string is indeed unused. It's there only as an > accounting

Re: [racket] bitmap% size in memory

2012-12-19 Thread Matthew Flatt
The "shadow" byte string is indeed unused. It's there only as an accounting trick for Racket's garbage collector. The memory used for the actual bitmap is not visible to the garbage collector, so it doesn't directly count towards a program's (or custodian's) memory use. The shadow byte string is a

[racket] bitmap% size in memory

2012-12-18 Thread Bert De Ketelaere
Hello all, When loading large pictures (± 4300x2600 pixels) I would expect that they takes up around 45Mb of memory. But when I monitored my program in windows task-manager I noticed it was more in the neighborhood of 100Mb (after garbage collection, the in-between values goes over 200Mb) Hopi