http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251

           Summary: GC not working
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: x86
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Severity: regression
          Priority: P2
         Component: druntime
        AssignedTo: nobody@puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: wfunction@hotmail.com


--- Comment #0 from wfunction@hotmail.com 2012-01-08 23:40:33 PST ---
On DMD 2.057, the code:


import core.memory, std.stdio;
extern(Windows) int GlobalMemoryStatusEx(ref MEMORYSTATUSEX lpBuffer);
struct MEMORYSTATUSEX
{
    uint Length, MemoryLoad;
    ulong TotalPhys, AvailPhys, TotalPageFile, AvailPageFile;
    ulong TotalVirtual, AvailVirtual, AvailExtendedVirtual;
}
void testA(size_t count)
{
    size_t[] a;
    foreach (i; 0 .. count)
        a ~= i;
}
void main()
{
    MEMORYSTATUSEX ms;
    ms.Length = ms.sizeof;
    foreach (i; 0 .. 32)
    {
        testA(16 << 20);
        GlobalMemoryStatusEx(ms);
        stderr.writefln("AvailPhys: %s MiB", ms.AvailPhys >>> 20);
    }
}



Gives output:

AvailPhys: 3711 MiB
AvailPhys: 3365 MiB
AvailPhys: 3061 MiB
AvailPhys: 2747 MiB
AvailPhys: 2458 MiB
core.exception.OutOfMemoryError

Obviously, the GC is non-functional...

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251


David Simcha <dsimcha@yahoo.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |dsimcha@yahoo.com
         Resolution|                            |INVALID


--- Comment #1 from David Simcha <dsimcha@yahoo.com> 2012-01-09 14:47:00 PST ---
This looks like false pointers.  testA allocates 48 MB for its largest array on each run.  We really need precise heap scanning.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251


wfunction@hotmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|INVALID                     |


--- Comment #2 from wfunction@hotmail.com 2012-02-29 20:08:19 PST ---
Just wondering, why was this marked as "Resolved, Invalid" with no comment?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251


Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |clugdbug@yahoo.com.au
         Resolution|                            |INVALID


--- Comment #3 from Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> 2012-03-01 01:22:39 PST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Just wondering, why was this marked as "Resolved, Invalid" with no comment?

Huh? Comment #1 was added when it was closed. Reclosing.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251


wfunction@hotmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|INVALID                     |REMIND


--- Comment #4 from wfunction@hotmail.com 2012-03-01 02:01:33 PST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Just wondering, why was this marked as "Resolved, Invalid" with no comment?
> 
> Huh? Comment #1 was added when it was closed. Reclosing.

Wait what?

"This looks like false pointers [...] We really need precise heap scanning."

Doesn't that mean this needs to be fixed? Or is one of us misunderstanding the meaning of the above?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251



--- Comment #5 from Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> 2012-03-01 03:39:55 PST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > Just wondering, why was this marked as "Resolved, Invalid" with no comment?
> > 
> > Huh? Comment #1 was added when it was closed. Reclosing.
> 
> Wait what?
> 
> "This looks like false pointers [...] We really need precise heap scanning."
> 
> Doesn't that mean this needs to be fixed? Or is one of us misunderstanding the meaning of the above?

No, it's inevitable that a mark-and-sweep GC on a 32 bit system won't work if large numbers of false pointers are present. And this code:

   foreach (i; 0 .. count)
        a ~= i;

is flooding the system with false pointers.

You marked this as regression, is there any previous compiler where this
worked?
(reopen if it there is).

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251



--- Comment #6 from wfunction@hotmail.com 2012-03-01 14:53:44 PST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> No, it's inevitable that a mark-and-sweep GC on a 32 bit system won't work if large numbers of false pointers are present. And this code:
> 
>    foreach (i; 0 .. count)
>         a ~= i;
> 
> is flooding the system with false pointers.

I think you might have misunderstood the problem, like I originally did.

I am **********  NOT  *********** filling the system with false pointers. See David Simcha's comment in response to mine: http://stackoverflow.com/a/8796226/541686

It's inherently defective -- I'm merely _allocating_ a lot of memory, that's
all. The rest is a problem with the GC's algorithm.
(Unless you expect that no one will allocate one 20-MB chunk of RAM?)

> 
> You marked this as regression, is there any previous compiler where this
> worked?
> (reopen if it there is).

I marked it as "remind", since I'm sorta reminding about this bug... if that's not the implied meaning then my bad, but this still needs to be fixed.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251


Rob Jacques <sandford@jhu.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P2                          |P4
                 CC|                            |sandford@jhu.edu
           Platform|x86                         |All
         OS/Version|Windows                     |All
           Severity|regression                  |minor


--- Comment #7 from Rob Jacques <sandford@jhu.edu> 2012-03-04 09:53:01 PST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > No, it's inevitable that a mark-and-sweep GC on a 32 bit system won't work if large numbers of false pointers are present. And this code:
> > 
> >    foreach (i; 0 .. count)
> >         a ~= i;
> > 
> > is flooding the system with false pointers.
> 
> I think you might have misunderstood the problem, like I originally did.
> 
> I am **********  NOT  *********** filling the system with false pointers. See David Simcha's comment in response to mine: http://stackoverflow.com/a/8796226/541686
> 
> It's inherently defective -- I'm merely _allocating_ a lot of memory, that's
> all. The rest is a problem with the GC's algorithm.
> (Unless you expect that no one will allocate one 20-MB chunk of RAM?)

The static data segment and the stack generate _always_ contain false pointers. So even if you're not generating them yourself much, they do exist and things will get stuck.

Also, direct use of ~= is discouraged; appender is recommended instead and there  patch for appender that solves this issue.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251


Leandro Lucarella <leandro.lucarella@sociomantic.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |leandro.lucarella@sociomant
                   |                            |ic.com
         Resolution|REMIND                      |DUPLICATE


--- Comment #8 from Leandro Lucarella <leandro.lucarella@sociomantic.com> 2013-05-30 04:54:25 PDT ---
I think is better to set this as a duplicate of #3463, as when that one gets fixed, this one should be fixed too.

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 3463 ***

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------