Page 1 of 1

TASClient Memory Leaks and apparently Infinite loops >.>

Posted: 23 Mar 2009, 19:17
by computerquip
When you monitor the process while it starts up, it goes crazy. I've seen it use up to 70 % of my T3200. Which on itself is ridiculous for something like that. Also, occasionally after I press the X (Exit button) button, it will never close and actually it will suck up as much memory and CPU as possible until I manually delete the process. And twice has my laptop had to Force Shutoff due to overheat problems from this process. Any others?

Re: TASClient Memory Leaks and apparently Infinite loops >.>

Posted: 23 Mar 2009, 19:21
by lurker
I've never had it eat up much cpu except when loading unitsync, but it does take a bunch of ram and leak handles. Mandatory springlobby suggestion.

Re: TASClient Memory Leaks and apparently Infinite loops >.>

Posted: 23 Mar 2009, 21:43
by zerver
computerquip wrote:And twice has my laptop had to Force Shutoff due to overheat problems from this process.
I'm not saying TASClient should behave like this, but your laptop seems to have problems...

Re: TASClient Memory Leaks and apparently Infinite loops >.>

Posted: 27 Mar 2009, 05:17
by computerquip
I had to clean it out. I lowered it a good 5 C after I dusted it off. But never the less, it's happened again and it's not exactly healthy for my laptop to go into game type temperatures when I'm away or don't notice it.

I might try SpringLobby

Re: TASClient Memory Leaks and apparently Infinite loops >.>

Posted: 29 Mar 2009, 04:47
by computerquip
EVIDENCE: Time changed. To add to it all, the window isn't open or available.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7282/n ... yseven.jpg

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/3142/nineforty.jpg

Re: TASClient Memory Leaks and apparently Infinite loops >.>

Posted: 29 Mar 2009, 05:28
by Peet
lurker wrote:Mandatory springlobby suggestion.

Re: TASClient Memory Leaks and apparently Infinite loops >.>

Posted: 29 Mar 2009, 06:51
by computerquip
Just thought I'd provide the evidence :). Post closed I suppose.

Re: TASClient Memory Leaks and apparently Infinite loops >.>

Posted: 29 Mar 2009, 14:15
by SpliFF
computerquip wrote:Just thought I'd provide the evidence :). Post closed I suppose.
Basically, yeah. As I understand it TASClient is at an evolutionary dead end. It's not maintained by it's developer and he's gone on record as saying the code is too complex and/or messy for anyone to take over. SpringLobby is newer and has a few problems of its own but it's in active development and cross-platform which make it the best choice going forward.

In other words, most of us just want to see TASClient die, though it's fanbois and SL haters will probably drag it along kicking and screaming until Spring becomes completely incompatible with it (which is next release last I heard).

Re: TASClient Memory Leaks and apparently Infinite loops >.>

Posted: 29 Mar 2009, 15:30
by BrainDamage
SpliFF wrote:until Spring becomes completely incompatible with it (which is next release last I heard).
next release of spring will break compatibility with AIs, not with other functionality, so it should fail only if tasclient will be host and AI will be involved

EDIT: rephrased for more clarity

Re: TASClient Memory Leaks and apparently Infinite loops >.>

Posted: 29 Mar 2009, 20:04
by computerquip
If I'm correct, Nightly Builds installers already come with SpringLobby.

Re: TASClient Memory Leaks and apparently Infinite loops >.>

Posted: 30 Mar 2009, 22:49
by imbaczek
yeah, they do. there's absolutely nothing stopping TASClient from going back into the installer except for the fact that it doesn't seem to have a maintainer.

Re: TASClient Memory Leaks and apparently Infinite loops >.>

Posted: 30 Mar 2009, 22:59
by Auswaschbar
imbaczek wrote:yeah, they do. there's absolutely nothing stopping TASClient from going back into the installer except for the fact that it doesn't seem to have a maintainer.
And that it doesn't work :wink:

Re: TASClient Memory Leaks and apparently Infinite loops >.>

Posted: 31 Mar 2009, 04:12
by imbaczek
the assumption is that a maintainer would fix it ^^