search for: onstant

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "onstant".

Did you mean: constant
2007 Apr 05
0
problem with script/plugin install
...39;: cannot remove Object::OPT_TABLE (NameError) from e:/apps/ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-1.4.1/ lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:422:in `send'' from e:/apps/ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-1.4.1/ lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:422:in `remove_c onstant'' from e:/apps/ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-1.4.1/ lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:368:in `new_cons tants_in'' from e:/apps/ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-1.4.1/ lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:368:in `each'' from e:/apps...
2006 Feb 10
22
Mongrel 0.3 -- Runs Ruby On Rails
Hello Folks, This is the long awaited release of the Mongrel HTTP library that supports *Ruby On Rails*. I know tons of people have been waiting for it, so I''ve got a few things to lay down first before you get all excited: 1) It''s very very ALPHA support for Rails. It will run a Rails app, and runs my simple apps, but it''s not fast or correct as it needs to
2014 Oct 14
2
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Less memory and greater maintainability for debug info IR
...the previous stats): Scopes = 203166 [203166], Inlined = 3500000 [3500000] I assumed that both `DenseMap` and `std::vector` over-allocate by 50% to estimate the current (and planned) costs for the side-tables. Another stat I dumped periodically was the breakdown between V(alues), U(sers), C(onstants), M(etadata nodes), and (metadata) S(trings). Here's a sample from nearby: V = 23967800 (40200000 - 16232200) U = 5850877 ( 7365503 - 1514626) C = 205491 ( 279134 - 73643) M = 16837368 (31009291 - 14171923) S = 693869 ( 693869 - 0) Lastly, I dumped a bre...
2014 Oct 13
9
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Less memory and greater maintainability for debug info IR
In r219010, I merged integer and string fields into a single header field. By reducing the number of metadata operands used in debug info, this saved 2.2GB on an `llvm-lto` bootstrap. I've done some profiling of DW_TAGs to see what parts of PR17891 and PR17892 to tackle next, and I've concluded that they will be insufficient. Instead, I'd like to implement a more aggressive plan,