From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: [PATCH] Declare `GC_dump' ourselves if doesn't. Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:42:18 +0100 Message-ID: <874omrgd2t.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87zl4nmmpl.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <878wc45m5w.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1263336417 2223 80.91.229.12 (12 Jan 2010 22:46:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:46:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile@gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 12 23:46:50 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NUpVf-0003vb-G4 for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:46:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52440 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NUpVg-0001g4-7d for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:46:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NUpRY-0007jN-V9 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:42:33 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NUpRT-0007fC-Ik for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:42:32 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41153 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NUpRT-0007eq-9W for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:42:27 -0500 Original-Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.82]:65247) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NUpRS-0006Ih-PA for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:42:27 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,264,1262559600"; d="scan'208";a="44757061" Original-Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr (HELO nixey) ([80.67.176.83]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 12 Jan 2010 23:42:19 +0100 X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 23 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Niv=F4se?= an 218 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu In-Reply-To: (Andy Wingo's message of "Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:29:24 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:4459 Archived-At: Hi, Andy Wingo writes: > Ludovic, is there a reason to *require* 7.x, given that 6.8 seems to > work fine for people? Is there a reason for wanting 6.8 *in addition* to 7.x given that 7.x works fine for people? :-) See libguile/bdw-gc.h: indeed, there are bits and pieces to help compatibility between 6 and 7. It might work for 6.8, but it=E2=80=99s basically untested. And it=E2=80=99s a mess, because the libgc API changed= in subtle ways (e.g., see =E2=80=98scm_storage_prehistory=E2=80=99). Also, 6.= 8 was slower, the compile-time defaults were typically inappropriate, which would degrade performance, and so on. GC 7.0 was released in July 2007, and it=E2=80=99s an improvement. I perso= nally don=E2=80=99t want to maintain backward compatibility at the cost of horrid #ifdefs, deal with bug reports with the old libgc, etc. etc. just because Debian has been lagging behind. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.