![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Natteravn
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Herford / Germany
Posts: 2,580
|
I didn't read everything, so just as a side note: I think that Small Data is generally a bad choice for a shared library. You have to save and restore the Small Data base pointer (to the __MERGED section in A4) in every single library function and callback (using
__saveds). Additionally you steal register A4 from the code generator. This is quite some waste as a good library shouldn't have any static data sections at all. Best practice is to store everything in the library base structure, which also provides you fast base-relative addressing (with A4 still available). I wouldn't be surprised if this also solves your static variable problems. ![]() Edit: And constant data, like your TagItem structure, should get a constattribute, so the compiler can place it into the code section for PC-relative addressing. Last edited by phx; 04 July 2024 at 10:44. Reason: cost |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |||
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Top of the world
Posts: 188
|
Quote:
To be on the safe side, I tested again now. It does not seem to make any difference. The library was at 084c08a4. And the variable in question at 0811DA9A again. I also checked that all library functions that call new_app_entry() has __saveds, and they do. They are all in the same .c file, and are the previously mentioned L_WB_AddAppMenuItem(), L_WB_AddAppIcon() and L_WB_AddAppWindow(). Attaching disassembly of the file in question with __saveds added to new_app_entry(). Quote:
But as I understand it there is no way to avoid using __saveds when making libraries the "SAS/C way", because it uses the the presence of the combination of __asm and __saveds to identify the functions that should be exported by the library. Quote:
*Edit: For this variable only, not everything. And I must admit that I did not trace back the original allocation of the struct I put it in. It might be a allocated with AllocVec(). Yea, I do believe my first task after this is to go trough the library code and add const to maybe all the static variables. While I found only on function-local example, there where lots of similar examples outside function scope. Last edited by hceline; 04 July 2024 at 15:06. Reason: Correction and clarification of previous edit |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#23 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Top of the world
Posts: 188
|
To know for sure the disassembly matched the code I was running I put a MuForce hit after the first KPrinF() in both L_AddScrollBars() and new_app_entry() like this:
Code:
{ volatile char *a = 0; *a = 0; } Quote:
And A4 is 08FA56BC in the hit from L_AddScrollBars(), and 08394EC4 in the hit from new_app_entry(). I attached two files with the first hit from each function. I am beginning to get an idea of what is happening, even if I do not understand exactly why. I would have realized sooner if I had just looked at the top of the .c file in question earlier. This is one of the "different .c files", as I've called them in my head in lacking the means to put a more descriptive term on it. I encountered them when I was adding library based resource tracking to the code-base. They are usually CreateNewProc() or LoadSeg() but some seem unrelated to these functions (Or maybe I just have not realized the connection yet). Code in these files would fail to find the library base for my resource tracking library even if it was available everywhere SysBase or ExecBase was. And I quickly discovered that all these files start with something like: Code:
#define UtilityBase (wb_data->utility_base) #define ExecLib ((struct ExecBase *)*((ULONG *)4)) I have just now come to realize that I can refer to them as the ".c files that are unable to get correct A4 value" or "where __saveds does not really work". I get a feeling that this issue might be very specifically tied to uncommon things this code-base does. And I do not expect other people to dig trough the whole library code to find an explanation for me. So unless someone immediately recognizes this off the top of their head, from my half-explanation, I'll declare the quest for at truth of the immortal variable over. Yet again, thank you everyone for the help. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#24 | ||||
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Top of the world
Posts: 188
|
A few corrections to my statements in this thread. Replying to myself here, because it feels wrong to edit the original posts after such a long time.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway I finally found a statement, in "The Guru Book", to the fact that none of the (d)debug.lib functions break Forbid(). |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,498
|
They don't, indeed. Actually, they would be not very valuable if they would. Even if they are patched by Sashimi or the syslog module of 3.2.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#26 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Top of the world
Posts: 188
|
Quote:
Thank you for confirming this. In other news, I tried moving on to other things, but my mind would not let this issue go. And I kept coming up with possible explanations as to the "why" of it. And finally it dawned on me, that this might be due to SetFunction() anyway, albeit indirectly. So I put back the static variable declaration, the KPrintF() line and the MuForce hit for one final test, to check the contents of A6. And upon every call to the function i question A6 contained the base address for workbench.library. Case closed (for real this time). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Italy
Posts: 201
|
Some memory loss you see may be fake news. The OS for example may cache cliprects (used to divide layers/windows into visible/hidden parts and for user installed clipping regions). So for example opening and closing a window immediately after may seem like it leaks memory, but it doesn't. It may just have cached cliprects in other windows/layers behind which were created when their visible/hidden areas changed because of your window hiding them (partly). Do check at least twice and compare last 2 results. avail flush prog avail flush prog avail flush Also the console/shell may cache/buffer things for stuff like scrollback if you are using one that features this. |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Top of the world
Posts: 188
|
Quote:
Does this also hold true when the windows I open is on a screen that I open and close between the measurements? As a matter of fact, if I do what you describe, there is usually* no loss between the state after the second and third FLUSH. So this might account for some, if not all, of the loss I am seeing. *Apparently randomly there would still be a loss. And if I continue repeating the steps, it would sometimes lose a little more, sometimes not. The loss has been varying between around 1k to around at-least 6k of fast ram, and 0 to around 2k of chip. But then again this was while the library was writhing to memory it did not own. This I've been bitten by before. That is how I learned to use MemLeakZ in place of Avail FLUSH. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,498
|
I suggest:
http://aminet.net/dev/debug/MemLog.lha which can restrict the analysis to a particular task or process and will also provide you the symbols or functions within which the memory was allocated if SegTracker is also installed (recommended). |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Top of the world
Posts: 188
|
Quote:
But the result is not very different from before. After a few tests it seems the fast ram losses are a little smaller. And It seems the the apparent random losses when continuing to repeat the steps are fewer and and require more repetitions to trigger. Quote:
None of them are really usable on this code-base due to it's multi-library design, and it's heavy reliance on CreateNewProc() and friends. I've had to roll my own by converting one of the link-library based ones to a real Amiga .library. It works by redefining the functions to itself like: Code:
#define Open(file,mode) __rtl_Open(file,mode,__FILE__,__LINE__) And it clearly can not account for memory the OS uses on my behalf. *As I understand this would require C99. Last edited by hceline; 10 July 2024 at 14:57. Reason: Forgot the [CODE] tag. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#31 | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Top of the world
Posts: 188
|
Quote:
Quote:
I can not guarantee I tried yours, but I believe I did as I had apparently copied it to C: on my test setup. Anyway, to make sure I did not misstate the facts again, I tried it without supplying TASKNAME or MODULE on the commandline now. And with a memory loss of 1744 bytes, the resulting file, where I redirected the output, was 747666 lines and ended with: Code:
0x00983E02 bytes required in total, 0x005F92C5 not yet released. And even more helpful if it was wired up to make use of the nice new ability you added to segtracker of locating functions and line-numbers from debug hunks. EDIT: I meant to write "function- and source file-names" Last edited by hceline; 12 July 2024 at 22:00. |
||
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Did LEFT-Amiga M survive? | nolunchman | Amiga scene | 6 | 12 November 2018 05:25 |
Static adres | jarre | Coders. General | 5 | 24 September 2018 11:59 |
Helping Amiga love survive | elronnightshade | support.Hardware | 19 | 08 June 2010 15:21 |
Help me survive in DM - Chaos Strikes Back | NewDeli | support.Games | 18 | 19 August 2009 16:07 |
|
|