From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: on coding a portable R6RS package supporting Guile and its FFI Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:57:56 +0100 Message-ID: <87k3qlemkr.fsf@pobox.com> References: <87y5fsw05u.fsf@rapitore.luna> <87sj5afyos.fsf@pobox.com> <87d2wee6kf.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1360148293 7054 80.91.229.3 (6 Feb 2013 10:58:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:58:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 06 11:58:34 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@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 1U32hx-0007aU-HJ for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:58:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51854 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U32he-0003xi-U8 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 05:58:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55203) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U32hZ-0003vb-TM for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 05:58:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U32hU-0002Rb-Fq for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 05:58:05 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:48150 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U32hU-0002RX-By; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 05:58:00 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1B8E9F82; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 05:57:59 -0500 (EST) 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=WaQnvevAse52 gDx4qYkPDGVcjIw=; b=td9JLj0OsgZXK6j87K6USvvBGu+l2GqNEM0+ntcZXkDk eS5udAdRRQFUxuYNhl9fHJ5p2UdhVxQSqNToH1mQ6cHnNf4KV5ll+/36aEdK0hnP uNLMGjj8iOb5yBwy1at2g5c78s5joSt3vvaK+Ai/LyCHjTpj5XB/4m961acTtEs= 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=Tj4jxA iEy0Y6uhJuFBzLbJyDCMO0chZpmG+mBhuTRMMrDv/QMAwzpNV/pnKqaLZf2kp8iu BegM7Z+MDCqt10OQrAxPIJbdcs+2qXv3bji2WqVp5uwlTwXRw+XhB1ho8OndCsIU zwwB60+B4Bn1zGINAb2gGKswF+v3RTiEpauiQ= 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 9A2149F81; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 05:57:59 -0500 (EST) 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 2B5C19F80; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 05:57:59 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87d2wee6kf.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:31:28 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 11CE5458-704C-11E2-A60B-5E8F0E5B5709-02397024!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-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:10029 Archived-At: On Tue 05 Feb 2013 23:31, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > This would be less of a problem if we had =E2=80=9Cimmediate pointers=E2= =80=9D [0]. > Would the retagging in 2.1 allow this? The tc3 itag allocation in wip-retagging is: * tc3: * 000: A heap object with a tag word on the heap * 001: Some other immediate * 010: A pair * 011: Small integer (odd) * 100: (Unallocated tc3.) * 101: (Unallocated tc3.) * 110: A struct * 111: Small integer (even) And SCM_IMP is: #define SCM_IMP(x) (1 & SCM_UNPACK (x)) So perhaps 101 could be an immediate pointer. Dunno. Pretty nasty stuff! > (At FOSDEM, Luca Saiu rightfully noted that we could use 4-bit tags > instead of 3-bit tags on 64-bit arches, which would give us the needed > room here.) GC_malloc still returns eight-byte aligned memory hunks on 64-bit, no? Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/