[erlang-questions] Dynamic Code and Atoms
Thu Jan 23 17:08:57 CET 2014
I don't necessarily need to do what I am doing, it just works quite well
... up to a point. The alternative involves a lot of list processing.
Clause head matching on the other hand is really fast. My challenge is to
match a very large number of patterns and to do it very fast and with the
On Jan 23, 2014 9:04 PM, "Anthony Ramine" <> wrote:
> Sorry I didn’t reply to all the first time, putting the list back in the
> Probably this problem was never encountered before. Do you really need to
> do whatever you are doing like this?
> Anthony Ramine
> Le 23 janv. 2014 à 16:29, Vance Shipley <> a écrit :
> > I'm well aware of the limits on the atom table, how to change it and
> that it's not garbage collected.
> > I'm not creating these atoms in my abstract forms. It appears to be core
> Erlang (cerl) which is creating atoms.
> > On Jan 23, 2014 8:50 PM, "Anthony Ramine" <> wrote:
> > Yes and no, the atom table being limited in size is by design (cf.
> > What are you compiling, though, to reach such a limit? That sounds
> completely insane to me.
> > --
> > Anthony Ramine
> > Le 23 janv. 2014 à 15:54, Vance Shipley <> a écrit :
> > > I am finding that when I dynamically build a function with
> > > a very large number of clauses the emulator crashes while
> > > compilig (cmpile:forms/2) after hitting the atom table limit.
> > > Looking at a erl_crash_.dump I can see that it was filling up
> > > the atom table with 'corN' where N is an ever increasing number.
> > >
> > > Is this a design limitation?
> > >
> > > --
> > > -Vance
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > erlang-questions mailing list
> > >
> > > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions