[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the new gc asserts in master
From: |
Han-Wen Nienhuys |
Subject: |
Re: the new gc asserts in master |
Date: |
Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:41:11 -0300 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) |
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 implement reference counting on the C side.
>
> I am actuallly inclined to add add abort() for anyone who calls scm_gc_mark()
> outside the marking phase.
Also, you're creating a race condition: the mark bits are not protected by a
lock,
so you will be screwed in still more interesting ways if more threads or types
would start doing this.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
- the new gc asserts in master, Andy Wingo, 2008/08/26
- Re: the new gc asserts in master, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/08/26
- Re: the new gc asserts in master,
Han-Wen Nienhuys <=
- Re: the new gc asserts in master, Ludovic Courtès, 2008/08/27
- Re: the new gc asserts in master, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/08/27
- Re: the new gc asserts in master, Ludovic Courtès, 2008/08/27
- Re: the new gc asserts in master, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/08/28
- Re: the new gc asserts in master, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/08/28
- Re: the new gc asserts in master, Ludovic Courtès, 2008/08/28
- Re: the new gc asserts in master, Andy Wingo, 2008/08/27
- Re: the new gc asserts in master, Andy Wingo, 2008/08/27
- Re: the new gc asserts in master, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/08/28
- Re: the new gc asserts in master, Ludovic Courtès, 2008/08/28