Re: plugged a memleak

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:

> I just fixed a long-standing memory leak in Guile 2.0.  (I say that like
> I'm proud or something, but of course I was the one the introduced it in
> the first place!)

Excellent!

> See c05805a4ea764dec5a0559edefcdfb9761191d07 in stable-2.0 for the
> gnarly details.  The summary is that applicable smobs were being leaked,
> because they were referenced in the values of weak-key tables.

I was wondering whether removing ‘smob-call’ would break binary
compatibility, but presumably that instruction could not possibly end up
in user bytecode on disk, right?

Thanks,
Ludo’.