unsafe | Experiments in execution of untrusted Python code

You can not turn arbitrary classes into hidden classes.

The documentation of defineHiddenClass contains the sentence

• On any attempt to resolve the entry in the run-time constant pool indicated by this_class, the symbolic reference is considered to be resolved to C and resolution always succeeds immediately.

What it doesn’t spell out explicitly is that this is the only place where a type resolution ever ends up at the hidden class.

But it has been said unambiguously in bug report JDK-8222730:

For a hidden class, its specified hidden name should only be accessible through the hidden class's 'this_class' constant pool entry.

The class should not be accessible by specifying its original name in, for example, a method or field signature even within the hidden class.

Which we can check. Even a simple case like

I'm not sure where the error was from, but switching flutter channel from master to stable fixed it.

I would propose to take a look in the RateLimiter direction. Maybe it does not work as expected, depending on the number of requests your application does over time. From the Javadoc for Ratelimiter: "It is important to note that the number of permits requested never affects the throttling of the request itself ... but it affects the throttling of the next request. I.e., if an expensive task arrives at an idle RateLimiter, it will be granted immediately, but it is the next request that will experience extra throttling, thus paying for the cost of the expensive task." Also helpful might be this discussion: github or github

I could imaginge there is some throttling adding up or other effect in the RateLimiter, i would try to play around with it and make sure this thing really works the way you want. Alternatively, consider using Spring @Scheduled to read from your queue. You might want to spice it up using embedded JMS for further goodies (message persistence etc).

To measure the branch you are interested in and particularly the scenario when while loop becomes hot, I've used the following benchmark:

extern "C" on both sides + #[repr(C)] on the Rust side + only using C-compatible types for interfacing between C++ and Rust, should work.

Alternatively, see cxx and autocxx.

If I uncheck the clear cache option in lighthouse options it starts working.

Edit: As mentioned by Sean McCarthy below the correct name is "Clear storage"

Old x86-64 CPUs don't support lzcnt, so rustc/llvm won't emit it by default. (They would execute it as bsr but the behavior is not identical.)

Use -C target-feature=+lzcnt to enable it. Try.

More generally, you may wish to use -C target-cpu=XXX to enable all the features of a specific CPU model. Use rustc --print target-cpus for a list.

In particular, -C target-cpu=native will generate code for the CPU that rustc itself is running on, e.g. if you will run the code on the same machine where you are compiling it.

It compiles, when you'll add jaxb-runtime dependency, as below:

The C# specification says the following (my bold):

23.4 Fixed and moveable variables

The address-of operator (§23.6.5) and the fixed statement (§23.7) divide variables into two categories:
Fixed variables and moveable variables.

...snip...

The & operator (§23.6.5) permits the address of a fixed variable to be obtained without restrictions. However, because a moveable variable is subject to relocation or disposal by the garbage collector, the address of a moveable variable can only be obtained using a fixed statement (§23.7), and that address remains valid only for the duration of that fixed statement.

In precise terms, a fixed variable is one of the following:

• A variable resulting from a simple-name (§12.7.3) that refers to a local variable, value parameter, or parameter array, unless the variable is captured by an anonymous function (§12.16.6.2).
• .....

So it's explicitly forbidden by the spec. As to why it's forbidden, for that you would have to ask the language designers, but considering how much complexity is involved in capturing variables, it is somewhat logical.