show listing exceptionally slow

Bug #680399 reported by The Escapist
8
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
gnusim8085
New
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

Showing the listing for even a trivial program with just "nop" or "hlt" in it, takes between 3-5 seconds here.

This is on an i7 with 8 GB of RAM, running Win7 64 bit. Note that this is also slow under Linux.

Next, I was trying to see if the execution time grows in any way linearly with the size of the code, however just copying and pasting lots of "NOP" passages (i.e. thousands) into the code will inevitably cause the program to segfault once the listing is brought up.

Revision history for this message
The Escapist (wisd00m) wrote :

the crash can be reliably reproduced once you add >= 8000 instructions

Revision history for this message
The Escapist (wisd00m) wrote :
Download full text (78.2 KiB)

it's not just instructions, even comments trigger this:

; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; comment
; c...

Revision history for this message
The Escapist (wisd00m) wrote :
Revision history for this message
ramz (ramanathan-nit) wrote :

I tried to reproduce the listing Exceptionally slow problem with ~5000 (less than 5000 to avoid crash). I could not do so. It lists fast.

I am having Intel Duo Core + 4 GB RAM + 32 bit running in Linux.

Is slow listing problem in 64 bit machine only ?

Revision history for this message
The Escapist (wisd00m) wrote :

thanks for the follow up.
In fact, I am not seeing this problem anymore in the latest pre-release binaries that Onkar provided (1.3.7).
However, the crash I do still see - what about you?

Revision history for this message
The Escapist (wisd00m) wrote :

just saw your comment, so I guess you see it too.
It might be better to add a runtime check and show a warning/error messag if the source code buffer is too large - certainly better than just crashing on the hard coded limit...

Changed in gnusim8085:
milestone: none → 1.3.8
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.