From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Han-Wen Nienhuys Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: lazy sweeping. Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:06:01 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <15685.15801.966292.145689@meddo.cs.uu.nl> References: <15684.32520.154258.348830@blauw.xs4all.nl> <15685.3950.266394.345360@meddo.cs.uu.nl> <15685.14250.901905.318924@meddo.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 1027948001 8651 127.0.0.1 (29 Jul 2002 13:06:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:06:41 +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 17ZAEQ-0002FP-00 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:06:39 +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 17ZAEq-0007hR-00; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:07:04 -0400 Original-Received: from aurora.cs.uu.nl ([131.211.80.20] helo=mail.cs.uu.nl) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17ZADq-0007f1-00 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:06:02 -0400 Original-Received: from meddo.cs.uu.nl.cs.uu.nl (meddo.cs.uu.nl [131.211.80.91]) by mail.cs.uu.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C1001CB29D; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:06:02 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Michael Livshin Original-Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 7.03 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:880 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:880 guile@cmm.kakpryg.net writes: > >> ditto for malloced memory, I guess. > > > > Hrm. I'll have to add some more logic then -- we want to be able to > > completely clean the heap, but not advance the "free mem starts here" > > pointer. What would be the right behavior: doing a full sweep, or a > > mark + full sweep? Or maybe just both (first the full sweep, if it > > doesn't yield enough: the full mark.) > > that's what I've meant, yes. however, it's just as optimization, and > the occurences where it might theoretically matter (system heap > exhaustion or running out of file descriptors) could probably be > considered to be rare enough. > > as long as you take care to finish the last sweep before marking, you > should be fine, correctness-wise. at first I didn't, and it barfed all over the place. That is neat about working with the GC itself. Any error will blow up grotesquely: that makes debugging a lot easier. by-the-by: anyone for a quick hint how to setup a C catch handler from C? -- 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