Re: Goops & Valgrind

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:

> There could be two fixes. One would be to assume that the Scheme code
> that calls %fast-slot-ref et al is well-formed, and thus we need no
> bounds checking. It's all in goops.scm, so this would be a decent
> assumption. The other would be to use a different definition of
> SCM_NUMBER_OF SLOTS, which would probably have a different purpose:
>
> #define SCM_NUMBER_OF_FIELDS(x) (SCM_STRUCT_VTABLE (x)[scm_si_nfields])

I'm not sure I understand all the details right now, but I would welcome
patches.  :-)

That said, AFAIK, primitives always do as much run-time checking as
needed, making no assumption about the correctness of Scheme code.  I
think it would be nice to follow that philosophy, unless it yields a
performance hit.

Thanks,
Ludo'.