Re: Let's throw out SCM_NEWCELL

[Chris Cramer]

On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 02:50:37AM +0200, Dirk Herrmann wrote:
> I was the one who added scm_gc_mark_cell_conservatively (blush).  I added
> it under the assumption, that a gc can happen _any_ time due to multi
> threading.  If, however, we go the way that gc can only happen if all
> threads are gone to sleep or are known to be in some state where they
> won't disturb and won't be disturbed by gc, there would probably be no
> need for scm_gc_mark_cell_conservatively.  This would then also fix the
> bug that you have described.

Alright, I removed scm_gc_mark_cell_conservatively and tested it. No
more segfaults. Since we only have coop threads at the moment, I suggest
we remove scm_gc_mark_cell_conservatively from stable.

-- 
C. Ray C. aka Christopher Cramer
address@hidden
http://www.pyro.net/~crayc/