[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Optimizations for pure-height approximations. (issue1817045)
From: |
n . puttock |
Subject: |
Re: Optimizations for pure-height approximations. (issue1817045) |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:09:03 +0000 |
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_height_cache) != SCM_BOOL_T)
OK, this is complete bollocks, of course. :)
It seemed right since I'm no longer getting the excessive memory usage.
http://codereview.appspot.com/1817045/show
- Optimizations for pure-height approximations. (issue1817045), lemzwerg, 2010/07/14
- Re: Optimizations for pure-height approximations. (issue1817045), n . puttock, 2010/07/15
- Re: Optimizations for pure-height approximations. (issue1817045), joeneeman, 2010/07/21
- Re: Optimizations for pure-height approximations. (issue1817045), joeneeman, 2010/07/21
- Re: Optimizations for pure-height approximations. (issue1817045), n . puttock, 2010/07/21
- Re: Optimizations for pure-height approximations. (issue1817045),
n . puttock <=
- Re: Optimizations for pure-height approximations. (issue1817045), n . puttock, 2010/07/23
- Re: Optimizations for pure-height approximations. (issue1817045), n . puttock, 2010/07/23
- Re: Optimizations for pure-height approximations. (issue1817045), arnonokia6230, 2010/07/31
- Re: Optimizations for pure-height approximations. (issue1817045), n . puttock, 2010/07/31