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: frozen! Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:33:37 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87r5tg19d4.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1255862897 3454 80.91.229.12 (18 Oct 2009 10:48:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:48:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 18 12:48:07 2009 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 4.50) id 1MzTJ1-0003lu-5X for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:48:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54597 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MzTIy-0000lo-R7 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:48:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MzT9v-0006w8-N4 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:38:44 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MzT9o-0006tg-Br for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:38:40 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58139 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MzT9l-0006tB-GK for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:38:34 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:64287 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MzT9j-0002FG-FT; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:38:31 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E4F7C400; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:38:31 -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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=qED3TL17b4y3 BJ2clZK4gjihodo=; b=WPBMXQ/l7tiCubCCcen6FHTLrjL8vuoICYyN2WsjiLrg pRjorOp93m4Vhau4wtrRmExZkk0rMxZywCLaGdnGDUBjTX/nd1e6S4a6P8o+MEPP D6mfvZC3kcWPq99pod2xedQ5iI/G/ih3TAL+p3YVhTPrhBsBIFaTa1YyjmRrba8= 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:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=UAmKE8 7wE8D3Vji2X/41CSHjn7liEfp9dPY84jRVyMfKGB/2KHwNDc9FNCzRLlmJeEfj/7 DqXubSZbFHGIrhZiWo1j8s5xeAQh68E8HgFQjQwsS3kThk9JVpCrUBCmiGO5uItE PLtNTGqsqELDDFhhi2nITPiPZXRMuVfR3nXr0= 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 347EE7C3FF; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:38:30 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote (unknown [83.202.40.107]) (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 8D6BD7C3FE; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:38:28 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87r5tg19d4.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:49:11 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6059CBA2-BBD2-11DE-B130-A67CBBB5EC2E-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) 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:9500 Archived-At: Hi Ludo, On Tue 06 Oct 2009 23:49, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > - bdw-gc-static-alloc (need to grep through sources to estimate the > amount of breakage it would cause) Neat :) My only concern is with bytevectors. It should be possible to map a bytevector to an existing range of memory, for read-write access. That implies a pointer indirection. We can optimize for the inline case by doing something like: +--------+------+-----+... | header | len | ptr | inline-contents +--------+------+-----+... \----^ andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/