>>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:24:34 +0000, David Reitter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> said:
> On 13 Nov 2005, at 06:39, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu wrote:
>> So, if there's a non-pure object that is only pointed to by pure
>> objects, which may happen if the assumption for the pure storage is
>> violated, then the object is reachable but get collected.
> OK, that makes sense. Do you know if this is documented somewhere?
I'm not sure if it is explicitly documented. I just read src/alloc.c.
The function `mark_object' immediately returns if its argument is a
pure object.
> I've read the info nodes about pure storage etc., and it doesn't say
> anything about what to look for in code, or if there is a way to
> test for the effect while loading. Maybe on a port that implements
> memory protection?
Setting watchpoint to the variable `pure' will do run-time check. It
is really feasible in GDB on Mac OS X thanks to hardware watchpoints.
> I mostly just preload code, but define a setup function in each
> package that is run at runtime. But from what you are saying, I am
> getting that vectors are allocated when the file is loaded, and not
> copied when a function is called. But if the code used (vector 0 0 0
> 0 0) instead of [0 0 0 0 0], the vector would be allocated at
> runtime and we don't run into such trouble.
Yes, but a vector is created on every call then.
> Does this apply only to vectors? (Since vectors seem immutable to
> me, this all would make sense...)
Literal strings and conses, as well as several vector-like objects. I
don't understand what "vectors seem immutable" means above. Vectors
are mutable in the sense that one can alter their contents.
YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Emacs-pretest-bug mailing list
Emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
