From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: GC for logic programming Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 09:40:01 +0200 Message-ID: <87a9b3tgdq.fsf@pobox.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1398843632 2956 80.91.229.3 (30 Apr 2014 07:40:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 07:40:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: Stefan Israelsson Tampe Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 30 09:40:25 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WfP7x-0005vq-4d for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 09:40:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55101 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WfP7w-0000yZ-Im for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 03:40:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60274) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WfP7m-0000ni-8o for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 03:40:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WfP7f-0003D5-6f for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 03:40:14 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:60881 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WfP7f-0003CU-2n for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 03:40:07 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EF2612A17; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 03:40:06 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=WiE2hex2k85I91zSdlKyttQxQ4E=; b=n+yS/Q BtMBhmH6u/7MPr4mbuomjxvaIXC2TGRK/6tqyOqFKjvW0LOTMTjYYll81rD2n0cP DtmUIIX3l1rQSK02MywAsTHcVg5D5EN91Qh7TXQDCvuuORRt0+/+BRkP8dj8bTAG U0ukKz/bRBCpxgjKlQTqJqXncLApSKUQEp/VI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=TAkPmfZ8tltve5sT2V+2k3GP2iy6EwKg Gqy02b1C7GBeOOYMN0fx0stJRk9pj//GXUYt5yW0eyQ7pLH70TTsiyykti0AzJTU 9i1t1c5ohQPTt+Q6WVr/NK99SPRiQgggGnJmaJLEXAX6xHSezcNmQf9gltkvTX9M +gRVJtGaSq4= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FD512A16; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 03:40:06 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [88.160.190.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3FB6912A14; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 03:40:04 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Israelsson Tampe's message of "Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:07:58 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A4DD1604-D03A-11E3-A845-6F330E5B5709-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 208.72.237.25 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:17123 Archived-At: On Wed 30 Apr 2014 08:07, Stefan Israelsson Tampe writes: > It turns out that it is not possible as far as I can see to enable such > a feature without modifying bdw-gc. The basic need is to know if objects > have been marked through normal code or not but still keep the objects > from gc. The reason is that the sweep phase has to be postponed to > places in the code where it is safe to modify the stack. I have no idea what this means. However what if you attach a finalizer to them, and make the references from the stack weak? The finalizer can decide whether they stick around or not. Or put them in a guardian and pump the guardian from somewhere that it's safe. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/