forked from adafruit/circuitpython
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Initialization hard fault memaccess #10
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
Open
christopherwun
wants to merge
4
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
initialization-hard-fault-memaccess
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wouldn’t this create a memory leak? I might be wrong, but from what I recall, mp_obj_new_float allocates a new object on the heap. If self->fquat[i] is not NULL, the existing pointer will be overwritten and effectively lost. The garbage collector is probably helping with this but at the performance cost.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe you are correct. I first noticed this pattern in the report function when debugging, thinking that this could be a reason for the hard fault (see fn pasted below). But, after looking into it further, since
self->fquatpoints to anmp_obj_tarray and Python (and therefore MicroPython) floats are immutable, the struct has to be updated with a new float object pointer on each update. Besides, I haven't seen any problems with memory allocation with the current implementation.I guess an alternative solution would be to try using the native float instead of an
mp_obj_tarray (since we don't accessself.fquatfrom the Python layer anyways). I think this would probably be a separate PR though - let me know your thoughts.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was curious whether making that change would improve performance so I tried it in this PR here as well. Haven't been able to test longer-term performance (which I assume is where we would see big changes), but the short term sampling rate is pretty much the same (and likely limited by the Python layer regardless). #11