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: "avoid running GC when SCM_I_CURRENT_THREAD is unset" Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:31:27 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87ipv0fmof.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1301520681 4432 80.91.229.12 (30 Mar 2011 21:31:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 21:31:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: Neil Jerram Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 30 23:31:17 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 1Q52yz-0001C5-1z for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:31:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47517 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q52yy-000164-Ih for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:31:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=55499 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q52yv-00015m-Dh for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:31:14 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q52yu-0008Fk-6N for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:31:13 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:47502 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q52yu-0008Ff-2P for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:31:12 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1033A4863; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:32:59 -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=xVewoFS3ZISr3LyRQzUGNKKqGow=; b=BpHeu1 0zBvmrwszpsW2k5KlMUvT7kjfCTW0wVYoJ+/BbZxsP4zYi6Wz86uEtcR+Cz5Tcze eXggCtRVRf5aVXAbxeIg0UzUsV9GS2WaeR9KbjrwLNUMe86KO11Fw2zJTaKBrjV6 iuanSGS4s0KRL8ujKiCymY5HYkXZcIehEgRRs= 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=BqJlNcCm5vfhk4Z47AuZVyna1pmEtZQ0 yD2LOyIHLCxIsOJM0qH6JnQctLRgElDOje/Mb3c3DplIdHBAUrRh242kZGgTE5Hh CQtAeaP7alcoDiSkRY5wHCzGAtqkHKR0btDNmrjscGeW/Zsyf0Vg7hGQMA0iT2Jk hKY6fl30zm4= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB96B4862; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:32:56 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 569D24860; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:32:55 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87ipv0fmof.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> (Neil Jerram's message of "Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:11:44 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 473D0FEC-5B15-11E0-8B17-E8AB60295C12-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 64.74.157.62 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:12098 Archived-At: Hi Neil! Adding guile-devel; I'm wrong a lot lately, and folks should know ;-) On Wed 30 Mar 2011 21:11, Neil Jerram writes: > I saw this change and couldn't fully understand it. Given that you > ended up adding GC_disable() and GC_enable() around the GC_malloc() > call, couldn't you just have done that without all the other changes > from "t->" to "t." ? > > I'm probably missing something, but could you point it out? Indeed, I probably could have just done a GC_disable before the whole thing, and an enable() afterwards. That's probably clearer, no? Andy -- http://wingolog.org/