Re: scratch/igc: Implications of MPS being asynchronous

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 16:55:54 +0000
> Cc: pipcet@protonmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, gerd@gnu.org, 
>       eller.helmut@gmail.com
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> +With the traditional GC, you can also explicitly trigger a full GC, by
> >> +calling the function =garbage-collect=.  With IGC, this is no longer the
> >> +case, though that function does still perform some necessary internal
> >> +cleanups.  The statistics returned by that function are also not
> >> +accurate with IGC.
> >
> > Don't we have igc--colect?
> 
> That's true.
> 
> Should we perhaps make `garbage-collect` call `igc_collect`?  The user
> did ask for a GC to happen, after all.
> 
> (IMHO, the code organization is a bit funny here, because
> garbage_collect() doesn't do what it says on the tin.  I don't think
> it's worth addressing that right now though.  Maybe it's worth taking a
> second look after merging.)

If we want to add igc_collect somewhere which is called by
garbage-collect, we should add it to garbage_collect, because what you
call "funny" here is quite confusing.  Are there any good reasons not
to call igc_collect from garbage_collect?