code review 131010044: runtime,runtime/debug: Converted some functions from go...

runtime,runtime/debug: Converted some functions from goc to Go.

[sanjay.m, 2014-08-21 07:36:12]

Hello golang-codereviews@googlegroups.com (cc: dvyukov@google.com,
khr@golang.org),

I'd like you to review this change to
https://code.google.com/p/go

[khr, 2014-08-21 17:17:26]

LGTM

https://codereview.appspot.com/131010044/diff/10002/src/pkg/runtime/debug/stu...
File src/pkg/runtime/debug/stubs.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/131010044/diff/10002/src/pkg/runtime/debug/stu...
src/pkg/runtime/debug/stubs.go:1: // TODO: copyright blah blah
do your TODO

https://codereview.appspot.com/131010044/diff/10002/src/pkg/runtime/debug/stu...
File src/pkg/runtime/debug/stubs.s (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/131010044/diff/10002/src/pkg/runtime/debug/stu...
src/pkg/runtime/debug/stubs.s:1: // TODO: copyright blah blah
do your TODO

[sanjay.m, 2014-08-21 18:36:21]

Hello golang-codereviews@googlegroups.com, khr@golang.org (cc:
dvyukov@google.com, golang-codereviews@googlegroups.com),

Please take another look.

[khr, 2014-08-21 19:40:08]

LGTM

[sanjay.m, 2014-08-22 19:59:08]

Hello golang-codereviews@googlegroups.com, khr@golang.org (cc:
dvyukov@google.com, golang-codereviews@googlegroups.com),

Please take another look.

[sanjay.m, 2014-08-22 20:01:35]

On 2014/08/22 19:59:08, sanjay.m wrote:
> Hello
https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&to=golang-codereviews@googleg...,
https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&to=khr@golang.org (cc:
> https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&to=dvyukov@google.com,
https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&to=golang-codereviews@googleg...),
> 
> Please take another look.

No changes from previous diff here; I synced so this would submit cleanly.

Sanjay

[khr, 2014-08-25 00:21:55]

LGTM

[khr, 2014-08-25 03:27:04]

*** Submitted as https://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=582d66a876b7 ***

runtime,runtime/debug: Converted some functions from goc to Go.

LGTM=khr
R=golang-codereviews, khr
CC=dvyukov, golang-codereviews
https://codereview.appspot.com/131010044

Committer: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>

[gobot, 2014-08-25 04:12:23]

This CL appears to have broken the nacl-arm-cheney builder.
See http://build.golang.org/log/f849e0381c651b03bef4ea79110f522311112477

[khr1, 2014-08-25 04:47:45]

This failed because HeapIdle == 0.  But that seems ok, both HeapSys and
HeapInuse are equal at around 27MB.  Is the HeapIdle==0 check a bad test?


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:12 PM, <gobot@golang.org> wrote:

> This CL appears to have broken the nacl-arm-cheney builder.
> See http://build.golang.org/log/f849e0381c651b03bef4ea79110f522311112477
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/131010044/
>

[sanjay.m, 2014-08-25 04:58:28]

I agree. I also don't see why Idle being 0 is bad. I think that it should 
be checking that (Idle+InUse == Sys) && (Sys > 0) or some such.

[sanjay.m, 2014-08-25 05:01:11]

I'll send a CL in a moment with that.

On Monday, August 25, 2014 12:58:28 AM UTC-4, Sanjay Menakuru wrote:
>
> I agree. I also don't see why Idle being 0 is bad. I think that it should 
> be checking that (Idle+InUse == Sys) && (Sys > 0) or some such.
>