Bill Schottstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think there is an "scm_mallocated leak" in association with
> object->string.
oh. thanks for the report, I'll look at this later today.
[ the whole approach of making things signed so that (if you are
lucky) you can detect overflows stinks.
I think there is an "scm_mallocated leak" in association with object->string.
I ran into this while running a long debugging pass that was calling
scm_object_to_string
millions of times; eventually the program exited at line 1023 in gc.c (where
it thinks scm_mallocated has underflowed). In fact,
