similar to: Garbage collection in Ruby

Hi, Can anybody list out what are all the exceptions available in ROR? Thanks in advance... Karthik. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to

Hi everyone, hi have a similar problem in a view: <div id="content">...</div> <a href="javascript:void(0)" onClick="Effect.Toggle(''content'');">Hide/show content</a> I would like the page to "remember" that the div has been hidden after a page reload. (The div comes up always visible even if it was set to hidden

Hi, Sometimes I am getting "Stack level too deep" exception. I have know no idea on when I am getting and why I am getting. Please give your suggestions. Thanks in advance... -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.

On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 12:16 +0100, David Given wrote: > On 17/09/10 09:55, Pedro Ferreira wrote: > > As I understand it, LLVM simply gives you support for garbage collectors > > that you have to implement yourself and link into the final binary, > > similar to what C's malloc does (it's a library call). The issue with > > GC's is that they need to be provided

Hi, I can''t get my radio button to be checked by default, here is what I have: <%= f.radio_button :gender, "male", :checked => ''true'' %><p>Male</p> <%= f.radio_button :gender, "female" %><p>Female</p> -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received

Hi, I had a technical question about CHARSXP and garbage collection and couldn't find the answer in the R manual. The question is this. Are CHARSXP garbage collected like any other object, despite being part of the CHARSXP cache? i.e. is the cache being cleaned by garbage collection regularly and therefore, when I am in C code, do I need to protect a CHARSXP? Thanks! Holger [[alternative

Hello, I want to add garbage collection support to a compiler with a llvm backend, using the shadow-stack compiler plugin. I read the GC tutorial in the LLVM documentation, and the paper about shadow-stacks. Im currently adding intrinsics to my generated llvm code, and trying to write code to connected it to my (existing) garbage collector library. Im not sure yet how everything fits together.

Talin wrote: > A while back there was a discussion thread about whether an accurate, > concurrent garbage collector could be "generic" in the sense of being > able to support multiple different languages efficiently. After having > done some work on this, I now believe that this is the case Very cool! I haven't worked on a system with good concurrent garbage

On Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Reid Spencer wrote: > Yes, the JIT implementation was recently improved to add support for > this. There's nothing you need to do (or emit). The JIT implementation > will automatically collect memory that is not being used. See the > JITMemoryManager in lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/JITEmitter.cpp for details. The JIT doesn't automatically do this. I don't

Hi all, I'm posting this here as it discusses an issue with an external C library. If it would be better in R-Help, then I'll repost. I'm using an external library which I've written, which provides a large set of data (>500MB in a highly condensed format) and the tools to return values from the data. The functionality has been tested call by call and using valgrind and works

If I recall correctly, the garbage collector interface consists mostly of some fuctions that one calls during execution to notify the collector about a GC root. There's one othr thing that's needed if you do JIT compilation: you have to garbage-collect the generated code. This means that the collector must be able to find where the pointers are in the generated code together with

Hi all, I'm posting this here as it discusses an issue with an external C library. If it would be better in R-Help, then I'll repost. I'm using an external library which I've written, which provides a large set of data (>500MB in a highly condensed format) and the tools to return values from the data. The functionality has been tested call by call and using valgrind and works

As I understand it, LLVM simply gives you support for garbage collectors that you have to implement yourself and link into the final binary, similar to what C's malloc does (it's a library call). The issue with GC's is that they need to be provided info about the stack, thats where LLVM's support comes in. As far as I know, the garbage collector is linked into the final binary

Allocating many small objects triggers numerous garbage collections as R grows its memory, seriously degrading performance. The specific use case is in creating a STRSXP of several 1,000,000's of elements of 60-100 characters each; a simplified illustration understating the effects (because there is initially little to garbage collect, in contrast to an R session with several packages

This is really nice, it supports my (somewhere-in-the-future) work with llvm, garbage collection and persistent memories. Can/Will one garbage collector be used for several different front-end languages? If so, don't you have to put functionality to traverse objects in the language implementation, since the internal representation depends on what language that is compiled. One language's

The following statements yield a seg.fault: R --vanilla --nsize 500K x <- rep(letters,10000) f <- function(x) {z<-paste("\"",x,"\"",sep=""); z} y <- f(x) Segmentation fault If a turn gcinfo on, I get Garbage collection [nr. 1]... 387529 cons cells free (75%) 3807 Kbytes of heap free (62%) Garbage collection [nr. 2]... 273868 cons cells free

When doing repeated regressions on large data sets, I'm finding that the time spent on garbage collection often exceeds the time spent on the regression itself. Consider this test program which I'm running on an Intel Haswell i7-4470 processor under Linux 3.13 using R 3.1.2 compiled with ICPC 14.1: nate at haswell:~$ cat > gc.R library(speedglm) createData <- function(n) {

On 7/6/2011 6:24 PM, Talin wrote: > The LLVM code generators and analysis passes have a much more thorough > knowledge of SSA value lifetimes than frontends do, and therefore > could avoid spilling and reloading of values when it wasn't needed. Although this would indeed be nice, it is not done by similar platforms in practice. I have investigated [very] briefly into whether the

On 17/09/10 09:55, Pedro Ferreira wrote: > As I understand it, LLVM simply gives you support for garbage collectors > that you have to implement yourself and link into the final binary, > similar to what C's malloc does (it's a library call). The issue with > GC's is that they need to be provided info about the stack, thats where > LLVM's support comes in. Are there

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Sandro Magi wrote: > I've attached the lazy ref-counting collector if anyone's interested. > There are a few suggested enhancements in the source for those who > might want to extend it, such as bounds for real-time constraints, or > adding generations to reduce the overhead of filtering out the live > roots. :-) By the way, how are you testing this?