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: lazy sweeping. Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:09:27 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <15686.26071.964366.614742@blauw.xs4all.nl> References: <15684.32520.154258.348830@blauw.xs4all.nl> 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 1028023659 1568 127.0.0.1 (30 Jul 2002 10:07:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:07:39 +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 17ZTuk-0000PB-00 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:07:38 +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 17ZTvA-0003GZ-00; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 06:08:04 -0400 Original-Received: from smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.138]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17ZTuK-0003FD-00 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 06:07:12 -0400 Original-Received: from blauw.xs4all.nl (blauw.xs4all.nl [213.84.26.127]) by smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g6UA6M9J094876; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:06:22 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Michael Livshin Original-Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel In-Reply-To: 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:888 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:888 guile@cmm.kakpryg.net writes: > > * Lazy sweeping sounds like a feature, but it actually leads to > > simpler, more natural code than the old sweeping code. > > did you consider various finalizations? like closing file descriptors > of dead ports, sort of fing. > > if you just lazy-sweep naively, some external resources may never get > freed. oh, btw, I noticed that only ports are flushed on exit of GUILE (gc.c - onexit ()). The manual talks about "freeing resources" for the smob free function. I believe that is inaccurate: free is only for freeing memory. Stuff like closing files should happen in an explicitly called function, for the free() might never get called at then end. -- 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