From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Han-Wen Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: gen gc Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:12:38 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <15669.63974.973133.308661@blauw.xs4all.nl> References: <15669.59575.560391.128570@blauw.xs4all.nl> <871ya2ezjo.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> Reply-To: hanwen@cs.uu.nl NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1026947425 2904 127.0.0.1 (17 Jul 2002 23:10:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 23:10:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17Uxw7-0000kh-00 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:10:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17Uxw0-00064D-00; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:10:16 -0400 Original-Received: from smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.139]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17UxvP-00063W-00 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:09:39 -0400 Original-Received: from blauw.xs4all.nl (blauw.xs4all.nl [213.84.26.127]) by smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g6HN9cu9000755; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:09:38 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Marius Vollmer In-Reply-To: <871ya2ezjo.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> X-Mailer: VM 7.05 under Emacs 21.2.1 Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:819 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:819 mvo@zagadka.ping.de writes: > Han-Wen writes: > > > How is this supposed to portable to GenGC? > > > > SCM_DEFINE (scm_object_address, "object-address", 1, 0, 0, > > (SCM obj), > > "Return an integer that for the lifetime of @var{obj} is uniquely\n" > > "returned by this function for @var{obj}") > > > > This is used in some of the goops code -- should I retain it? > > It would be cool if you could fake it. It doesn't need to be the real > memory address of the object, just a unique integer. ? What if I can't? Memory cells are going to move around. I don't see a way to generate a unique number without making some kind of table for objects subjected to object-address. Btw, I can imagine that internal hash tables might use the address of a cell as a source for a hash index. Does that happen anywhere? -- Han-Wen Nienhuys | hanwen@cs.uu.nl | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel