Re: doco scm_remember_upto_1

[Rob Browning]

Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:

> Yes, that would be an improvement.  As Rob say, you are safe right
> now, but having one scm_remember_upto_here too many does not hurt.

I presume they affect the available optimizations, but I suppose the
effect of "too many" would still be likely to be minimal...

>> Marius may need to comment here, but I was under the impression that
>> at the moment we haven't been trying to write all the code to
>> accomodate a C-side preemptive GC.
>
> Yes, but I'd say that for new code we could be more careful with the
> scm_remembers.

Hmm.  So what level of preemption are we planning to support, or
rather for what kind of preemption should we be coding defensively?  I
ask because it's been my experience that trying to write libraries to
support fine grained preemption can sometimes be expensive, both with
respect to coding and runtime.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4