From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: bdw-gc includes in libguile.h Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:06:55 +0100 Message-ID: <87hbardqgw.fsf@gnu.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1301076447 28142 80.91.229.12 (25 Mar 2011 18:07:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:07:27 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 25 19:07:20 2011 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q3BPp-00041o-4V for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:07:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35497 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q3BPo-0001cY-Gz for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:07:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49818 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q3BPi-0001aa-Vs for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:07:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q3BPh-0005Wj-7j for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:07:10 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:43008) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q3BPh-0005WJ-1x for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:07:09 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q3BPg-0003wT-Au for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:07:08 +0100 Original-Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:07:08 +0100 Original-Received: from ludo by reverse-83.fdn.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:07:08 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 37 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: reverse-83.fdn.fr X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 5 Germinal an 219 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.110013 (No Gnus v0.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZkHt9F39lXAh3yFTT0kes0QkBCM= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 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:11986 Archived-At: Hello, Andy Wingo writes: > I think we made a mistake in exposing bdw-gc.h to libguile.h users. > gc.h is quite scrupulous to not include it, but smob.h, inline.h > (sometimes), and pthread-threads.h pull it in. is intentionally pulled because our public headers use macros and inlines from . > Besides the modularity concerns that lead us to need to add bdw-gc libs > and cflags to Guile's libs and cflags, there is an acute problem, and > that is that we enable pthread redirects -- so users of libguile get > pthread_create et al re-#defined. Yes, that’s intended. > I think that in 2.2 we should not expose libgc interfaces in libguile, That would be great, but then ‘scm_cell’, ‘SCM_NEWSMOB’, etc. would need to do a function call, which we don’t want. Even if we did want it, the change would break the ABI. > and that in 2.0 we should disable pthread redirects. Why? We rely on pthread redirects internally and if users use pthread, then they need it too, I suppose. A meta-comment: can we agree to take more time to discuss this sort of things? I’ll try to be responsive, and the earth won’t stop spinning if the fix waits a couple of days. ;-) Thanks, Ludo’.