[#5322] O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...>

I just did some benchmarks on push, pop, shift, and unshift

24 messages 2005/07/01
[#5338] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/07/02

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Eric Mahurin wrote:

[#5348] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/07/02

--- Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:

[#5357] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/07/03

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Eric Mahurin wrote:

[#5359] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/07/03

--- Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:

[#5361] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/07/03

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Eric Mahurin wrote:

[#5362] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/07/03

--- Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:

[#5365] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/07/04

Hi,

[#5367] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/07/04

--- Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#5368] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/07/04

Hi,

[#5372] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Florian Gro<florgro@...> 2005/07/04

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#5420] Sydney Developer Preview 1 released — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...>

Sydney, an experimental ruby interpreter, has been released!

15 messages 2005/07/11
[#5424] Re: [ANN] Sydney Developer Preview 1 released — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...> 2005/07/12

Thanks everyone for the feedback so far!

Re: GC tweak

From: Stefan Kaes <skaes@...>
Date: 2005-07-14 06:02:18 UTC
List: ruby-core #5450
nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:

>>+static void set_gc_parameters()
>>+{
>>+    char* min_slots_ptr = getenv("RUBY_HEAP_MIN_SLOTS");
>>+    if (min_slots_ptr != NULL) {
>>+	int min_slots_i = atoi(min_slots_ptr);
>>+	if (min_slots_i > 0) {
>>+	    heap_slots = min_slots_i;
>>+	    heap_min_slots = min_slots_i;
>>+	}
>>+    }
>>+    char* free_min_ptr = getenv("RUBY_HEAP_FREE_MIN");
>>    
>>
>
>This is disallowed in C89.
>
>  
>
I'm a bit curious what exactly is disallowed? Is it the late declaration 
of free_min_ptr? Or is it int min_slots_i = atoi(min_slots_ptr)? It's 
been along time since I had to use a c89 compiler :-)

>And in 1.9, stdio is not used in other places, so you may want
>to flush stderr after fprintf.
>  
>
OK.

But I was more interested to hear an opinion on the nature of the patch. 
And whether something like that could be included in 1.8.3 and 1.9. Not 
everyone has the chance to recompile in the environment in which his 
server apps are runnning. And most ISPs are reluctant to apply patches, 
which aren't official.

-- Stefan

In This Thread