New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Too many repetitions with xx operator causes out of memory; should it work lazily? #4523
Comments
From @AlexDaniel$ perl6 -e '"x" xx 9999999999' It seems like on 64-bit systems you get �«Memory allocation failed; could |
From @AlexDanielOK, I said that it only segfaults on 32-bit systems, but I was wrong. Code: Result: And of course it is also possible to replicate it on camelia: http://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2016-04-30#i_12413634 So I'll change the title. |
From @MasterDuke17On Sat Apr 30 03:42:00 2016, alex.jakimenko@gmail.com wrote:
================================================================================================ ==30606== Memcheck, a memory error detector |
The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open' |
From @jnthnOn Sat, 30 Apr 2016 03:42:00 -0700, alex.jakimenko@gmail.com wrote:
This is patched in MoarVM HEAD just now and no longer SEGVs (reports the array is too long to allocate). So, no longer a SEGV bug. However, I'm a bit surprised that xx does not work lazily, and actually makes such a huge array up-front. Not sure if we want to re-purpose the ticket for that; I'll remove the SEGV from the title, however, since that is resolved. |
From @lizmat
Ah, yes, I remember we discussed this. I�ll make it a Seq, although the question then becomes: should it be lazy or not? If it is not lazy, we would just be postponing the exception in some cases. Liz |
From @dogbert17On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 03:59:05 -0800, elizabeth wrote:
Fixed with commit rakudo/rakudo@1eb7b1f |
From @AlexDanielTests in Raku/roast@b320464 Closing On 2018-03-10 11:25:06, jan-olof.hendig@bredband.net wrote:
|
@AlexDaniel - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved' |
Migrated from rt.perl.org#126014 (status was 'resolved')
Searchable as RT126014$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: