From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: BDW-GC branch updated Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:28:05 -0400 Message-ID: <20090904182805.C0FYQ.518079.root@cdptpa-web20-z02> References: <87eiqmmy12.fsf@delenn.lan> 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 1252088908 31215 80.91.229.12 (4 Sep 2009 18:28:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:28:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= , Andreas Rottmann Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 04 20:28:20 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MjdWF-0004Lr-Gc for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:28:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55398 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MjdWE-0002up-TG for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:28:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MjdW9-0002uU-Rl for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:28:13 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MjdW7-0002tj-OE for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:28:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46076 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MjdW7-0002tZ-Kf for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:28:11 -0400 Original-Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.121]:49420) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MjdW5-0004kX-LB; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:28:09 -0400 Original-Received: from cdptpa-web20-z02 ([10.127.132.171]) by cdptpa-smta01.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20090904182805923.DOTU4754@cdptpa-smta01.mail.rr.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:28:05 +0000 In-Reply-To: <87eiqmmy12.fsf@delenn.lan> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Sensitivity: Normal X-Originating-IP: X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (1203?) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:9263 Archived-At: ---- Andreas Rottmann wrote:=20 > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > > Also, there are definite benefits to using a conservative GC for > > libguile, given how tightly it can be integrated with C (e.g., [2]). > > > My main concern is/was that by moving to a conservatice GC, and > _consequently changing the API of libguile to assume a conservative GC_ > (as outlined in [2]), you get third code relying on that as well. This > would make it effectively impossible to ever switch back to a precise GC > without potentially breaking all third-party code using the libguile > API. Isn't the current gc in guile already conservative? -Dale