Skip to content
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

Optimized layout_mark() for Ruby #6521

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Aug 20, 2019
Merged

Conversation

haberman
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@fables-tales
Copy link
Contributor

confirm this takes a representative ads benchmark from 18s to 11s.

@haberman
Copy link
Member Author

I think this is ready to merge. All of the Ruby tests are passing.

@haberman
Copy link
Member Author

haberman commented Aug 19, 2019

Oh no, this failure is back, in the Linux Ruby 2.3 test:

Failure: test_concurrent_decoding(BasicTest::MessageContainerTest)
/tmp/protobuf/protobuf/ruby/tests/basic.rb:245:in `block (3 levels) in test_concurrent_decoding'
     242:       thds = 2.times.map do
     243:         Thread.new do
     244:           100000.times do
  => 245:             assert_equal o, Outer.decode(raw)
     246:           end
     247:         end
     248:       end
/tmp/protobuf/protobuf/ruby/tests/basic.rb:244:in `times'
/tmp/protobuf/protobuf/ruby/tests/basic.rb:244:in `block (2 levels) in test_concurrent_decoding'
<<BasicTest::Outer: items: {0=><BasicTest::Inner: >}>> expected but was
<<BasicTest::Outer: items: {}>>
diff:
? <BasicTest::Outer: items: {0=><BasicTest::Inner: >}>

But it's not being caused by this PR, so it shouldn't block merging this PR.

@haberman
Copy link
Member Author

The failure is unrelated to this PR (and is fixed by #6541). I'm merging this now.

@haberman haberman merged commit 35b0a87 into protocolbuffers:master Aug 20, 2019
@haberman haberman deleted the layout_mark branch December 6, 2020 20:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants