Han-Wen Nienhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pushed (without changelog entry).
Note that what we agreed on was to provide ChangeLog-style comments in
the Git log entry, which this patch doesn't have.
Thanks,
Ludo'.
Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
Hi,
Han-Wen Nienhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
Note that what we agreed on was to provide ChangeLog-style comments in
the Git log entry, which this patch doesn't have.
Can you explain me exactly what you want and why?
I'm
Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
I'm still in favor of git revert since the log message makes it clear
which patch was reverted and why. We can then take our time and work
out a proper fix, and finally re-merge the patch plus its fix.
Furthermore, in the eventuality where none of us eventually finds
Han-Wen Nienhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
I'm still in favor of git revert since the log message makes it clear
which patch was reverted and why. We can then take our time and work
out a proper fix, and finally re-merge the patch plus its fix.
Furthermore, in the
Han-Wen Nienhuys escreveu:
The use of scm_gc_mark() outside of GC is fundamentally broken, since it
creates race conditions in the presence of threads.
I was not aware that this was the case.
My impression was that the mark phase is global; it requires all threads
that were in guile mode to
Hello,
Thanks for the nice summary!
Andy Wingo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But what if it goes like this:
S becomes collectable in theory
mark phase: S is indeed marked as collectable
C is returned from a callback: get_ptr() return S
at some later time the card containing S is
Hi,
Han-Wen Nienhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am pushing a fix for this to master.
Will you care to post and discuss your patches before pushing them?
This is all the more important that the patches don't seem to have any
relation with the problem at hand:
Hi again!
On Wed 27 Aug 2008 12:00, Andy Wingo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed 27 Aug 2008 07:00, Han-Wen Nienhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user/6372
I think reference counting is the correct solution for this, as far as
I understand the
Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
+#if (SCM_DEBUG_CELL_ACCESSES == 0 SCM_SIZEOF_UNSIGNED_LONG == 4)
x86-64 is not the only arch with 4-byte long long integers.
I'm not pretending it is the end-all fix. - we (I) need to understand
what is happening and make the numbers match up exactly. This is
Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
Sorry if I missed something but my understanding was that you were
referring to a GC fix, which it isn't. Re-reading the thread, it seems
I indeed missed the point, and I apologize.
I hope you do realize that every time you miss the point and send out a
reply you
Hi,
I just merged master to guile-vm, but I'm not sure if I really wanted to
do that now. Normal test suites are failing:
lt-guile: gc.c:604: scm_i_gc: Assertion `scm_cells_allocated ==
scm_i_marked_count ()' failed.
/home/wingo/src/guile/vm/test-suite/standalone/test-use-srfi: line 27:
Andy Wingo escreveu:
Hi,
I just merged master to guile-vm, but I'm not sure if I really wanted to
do that now. Normal test suites are failing:
lt-guile: gc.c:604: scm_i_gc: Assertion `scm_cells_allocated ==
scm_i_marked_count ()' failed.
Han-Wen Nienhuys escreveu:
even the lazy smob case I wrote about here:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user/6372
I would classify the use of mark bits outside of the mark phase as outside
of the defined API. If you want to have weak pointer semantics, use
a weak hashtable, or
13 matches
Mail list logo
