Avoid writing to shm a network that will be erased immediately - #6980
Open
AndyGrant wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Avoid writing to shm a network that will be erased immediately#6980AndyGrant wants to merge 2 commits into
AndyGrant wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
anematode
reviewed
Jul 16, 2026
Member
|
oh for some reason that got changed in my recent ascii fixes and this now reverts the behavior back to what we had before |
Member
|
🥴 |
Disservin
approved these changes
Jul 16, 2026
Member
|
Need to fix IWYU, althoguh kind of a bizarre trigger. I guess |
Contributor
Author
Some style decision to make about that forward-decl. |
Member
|
It'll speed up compilation, so I think it's worth also you can do |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Fairly simple. The default constructor was prompting us to write a network to shm, which we then immediately remove, as we write a new one. The first is written with a content hash of 0, as it is not initialized.
Some logging, showing what was happening, in
master:It is possible this was done intentionally. I don't currently see or understand the reason, however. This extra write is not of great consequence, although it means doubling shm sizes if explicitly sizing it to handling Stockfish.
If you happened to spawn a bunch of engines at once, I did run into cases where this file was left lingering. i.e, during a running state, both files were present. That should be resolved though already, with #6979
Bench 2466447
No functional change
cc @anematode