Hi Neil,

> Based on the synopsis above, I agree that moving step 1 inside the loop
> should fix this.  In addition, though, I think it would be very good if we
> could add a minimal test that currently reproduces the deadlock, and so will
> serve to guard against future regressions here.  Do you have such a test?

I don't -- it seems to be pretty dependent on timing.  I noticed it
while running my SRFI-18 test suite in a loop, and it took hours to
trigger.  Any suggestions?


> No need for a patch against both 1.8 and 1.9; just one will do, and git
> cherry-pick will handle the other for us (unless the fix is significantly
> different in the two branches).

Okay, find it attached.


Regards,
Julian