>From what I could tell, it looks like Dan put it in there as a potential GC hook when allocating the header of a string or PMC (see resources.c). My guess is that he is planning to fire off the GC from the interpreter.
If that is the case and we need it back, let me know and I'll restore it. Has the scope of the GC been determined yet? By this I mean will it only be managing PMC and STRING objects or will be used for all memory allocations? Thanks, David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Cozens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 7:53 PM Subject: Re: Large string patch > On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 06:25:33PM -1000, David & Lisa Jacobs wrote: > > First, I want to apologize for the size of this patch. I normally try to > > make bite size changes but this one just touched too many things. I still > > have a few enhancements to make but wanted to get this in before anyone else > > started hacking on the same pieces. > > > > This patch had a number of goals. > > > > * Expand the strings test suite to be more complete > > * Make string commands more consistent (i.e, now the only string command > > that actually changes the original is chopn) > > * Significantly reduce the number of memory allocations and eliminate > > reallocations. > > I like this a lot, but I'm not sure I'm happy with the idea of removing > the "interpreter" passing from the string allocation/deallocation stuff. > I'd ask why you've done that, but, when I think about it, I'm not entirely > sure why we pass the interpreter in there in the first place. Dan? > > -- > What would happen if you ran up to Hitler and mentioned Usenet? > - Kibo
