Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
On Thu Jan 12 04:06:55 2012, demerphq wrote: > On 11 January 2012 17:36, Father Chrysostomos via RT > <perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote: > > And BTW, I’d like to get rid of this PL_sawampersand madness (thereby > > closing about 6 RT tickets), but my first attempt failed, and my second > > attempt is awaiting a response from Nicholas Clark on the status of > > PERL_OLD_COPY_ON_WRITE. > > Should I have a look? If you could, that would be nice, but I was specifically asking the reasoning behind this comment in sv.c: ‘it's somewhat dead code, never expected to go live’. The code looks fine to me, but having someone else disprove that would be good. :-) > > Also if you are looking into this stuff also keep in mind that scalar > /g is still a problem, and keep in mind why my patch to fix it was > reverted (to prevent quadratic performance degradation in while (//g) > matches). Because it forces a pre-match copy for every iteration. If the pre-match copy never actually copies, that won’t be so much of a problem. I have a local experimental patch that forces the pre-match copy to use the shared string table, so that only the first copy is a real copy. But it causes memory corruption, and I haven’t got to the bottom of it yet. (Probably a stupid mistake somewhere.) I wasn’t sure whether it was worth debugging my patch, considering that PERL_OLD_COPY_ON_WRITE can already do what it does, and probably more efficiently. -- Father Chrysostomos --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: resolved https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=24237Thread Previous