Skip to content

Conversation

@google-labs-jules
Copy link
Contributor

  • πŸ’‘ What: Added logic to nil out the underlying array element when removing an element from ShapeArray (and effectively Struct).
  • 🎯 Why: Previously, ShapeArray.Remove would swap the element to remove with the tail element (or shift the window), but left the reference to the "removed" object in the underlying array's tail. This prevented the object from being garbage collected until the array itself was reallocated or collected.
  • πŸ“Š Measured Improvement:
    • Benchmarks: Ran BenchmarkSpacePartitionAddDelete (which involves heavy add/remove).
      • Baseline: ~7.86s / op, 179.5 MB/op
      • Optimized: ~7.90s / op, 179.5 MB/op
      • Result: No significant CPU or total allocation regression. The memory leak fix primarily benefits long-lived applications where Struct persists and shapes are removed, preventing gradual heap growth. The short-lived benchmark doesn't capture this long-term retention.
    • Verification: Added TestShapeArray_Remove_MemoryLeak which explicitly checks that the underlying array element is set to nil after removal, confirming the fix.

PR created automatically by Jules for task 13652935647002778501 started by @arran4

- Set the element in the underlying array to nil after swapping/removing it from the slice.
- Add regression test TestShapeArray_Remove_MemoryLeak.
@google-labs-jules
Copy link
Contributor Author

πŸ‘‹ Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a πŸ‘€ emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.


For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

@arran4 arran4 marked this pull request as ready for review January 20, 2026 11:17
Copy link
Owner

@arran4 arran4 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Need to verify

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant