From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mikael Djurfeldt Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: scm_remember_upto_here asm volatile Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 21:29:28 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <874r4186ty.fsf@zip.com.au> <87znll48wr.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <87he7rwzox.fsf@zip.com.au> <87znl1ocrn.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> Reply-To: djurfeldt@nada.kth.se NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1054495810 6817 80.91.224.249 (1 Jun 2003 19:30:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 19:30:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 01 21:30:03 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19MYWp-0001l5-00 for ; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 21:30:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19MYYK-0004h2-1C for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:31:36 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19MYXi-00048R-IZ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:30:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19MYXS-0003DU-7o for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:30:47 -0400 Original-Received: from kvast.blakulla.net ([213.212.20.77]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19MYXF-0002PZ-N7 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:30:29 -0400 Original-Received: from barbara.blakulla.net ([213.212.21.238] helo=witch) by kvast.blakulla.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19MYX1-0006Ag-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 21:30:15 +0200 Original-Received: from mdj by witch with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19MYWG-0000u9-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 21:29:28 +0200 Original-To: Marius Vollmer In-Reply-To: <87znl1ocrn.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> (Marius Vollmer's message of "01 Jun 2003 20:47:56 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) Original-cc: djurfeldt@nada.kth.se X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:2465 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:2465 [Answers given "out-of-context"---can't read the thread right now.] Marius Vollmer writes: > And since a GC does only run when all other threads are stopped in a > safe place, there won't be any GCs at critical moments. That's right. > Since this is so convenient, I think we should continue to make this > guarantee (that a GC wont happen spontanously). Mikael? Yes, I think this at least gives a simple model for what to expect. Any other more conservative model might have the advantage to preserve more freedom to change the GC/thread policy in the future, but will also need to be much more complex. Besides, we wouldn't know now what kind of cautions are important to think about... (Was that answer intelligible? :) Mikael _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel