From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: scheme closures: crash during garbage collection Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:45:26 +0100 Message-ID: <877j3mszu1.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <64e2f6fe0606081528m4e5f9979yff9b8294ecedf6d2@mail.gmail.com> <87mzclmjq8.fsf@zagadka.de> <87odwyt33x.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1150155958 7282 80.91.229.2 (12 Jun 2006 23:45:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 13 01:45:55 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fpw6Q-0007gb-0i for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 01:45:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fpw6P-0001NL-KN for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:45:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fpw6N-0001NF-1P for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:45:47 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fpw6J-0001N3-N2 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:45:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fpw6J-0001N0-Gh for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:45:43 -0400 Original-Received: from [80.84.72.33] (helo=mail3.uklinux.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FpwF8-0001gy-KF for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:54:50 -0400 Original-Received: from laruns (host81-129-157-146.range81-129.btcentralplus.com [81.129.157.146]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC75409FB0; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:45:42 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from laruns (laruns [127.0.0.1]) by laruns (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E186FDDB; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:45:26 +0100 (BST) Original-To: hanwen@lilypond.org In-Reply-To: (Han-Wen Nienhuys's message of "Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:33:13 +0000 (UTC)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) 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:5980 Archived-At: hanwen@byrd.xs4all.nl (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes: > In article <87odwyt33x.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net>, > Neil Jerram wrote: >>If I've understood correctly, this isn't possible in Gregory's >>scenario. >> >>(See >>http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-gtk-general/2006-06/msg00013.html >>if you didn't see the whole description on guile-gtk-general already.) > > I don't understand. The way I read it, Gregory concludes his email > with a solution for his problem. In any event, it's easy to write your > own GC protection scheme, which can have different semantics. That's true, but surely Guile should be helping developers out here? Is it hard to allow scm_gc_unprotect_object within GC, or does it constrain the GC implementation in some undesirable way? Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel