From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Vollmer Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Exposing common type wrapping/unwrapping methods Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:40:28 +0300 Message-ID: <87mznclr2b.fsf@zagadka.de> References: <87oecutxox.fsf@laas.fr> <87vf58cxxq.fsf@zagadka.de> <87k6kwopv5.fsf@laas.fr> <87vf22s6j7.fsf@laas.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1124542664 6898 80.91.229.2 (20 Aug 2005 12:57:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:57:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 20 14:57:42 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E6SuO-0005QR-Fo for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:57:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E6Sxx-0001tp-J0 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:00:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1E6Sia-0005F3-9P for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 08:45:00 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1E6SiX-0005Dy-Dj for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 08:44:59 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E6SiW-0005Dc-TS for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 08:44:57 -0400 Original-Received: from [213.243.153.37] (helo=smtp1.pp.htv.fi) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1E6SeM-00059s-Vr for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 08:40:39 -0400 Original-Received: from zagadka.ping.de (cs181072157.pp.htv.fi [82.181.72.157]) by smtp1.pp.htv.fi (Postfix) with SMTP id 1F7507FC75 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:40:29 +0300 (EEST) Original-Received: (qmail 7237 invoked by uid 1000); 20 Aug 2005 12:40:28 -0000 Original-To: Ken Raeburn In-Reply-To: (Ken Raeburn's message of "Sat, 20 Aug 2005 02:01:21 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:4702 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:4702 Ken Raeburn writes: > This reminds me... was there ever a decision on the "call malloc and > free from the same object on Windows" issue? My decision at that time was that we assume that there is only one malloc and one free. > Basically, malloc and free referenced from a DLL, say libguile.dll, > may be different instances of the functions than the application or > other DLLs might see, and they should thus be assumed to have > different allocation pools that can't be mixed. Is this merely technically possible or are people actually using this 'feature'? Is it considered a godd practice? Why should we agree? Can we require libguile.dll to use the systems libc malloc and free? We could put this in the documentation then so that people know which variant of malloc and free to use together with libguile.dll. -- GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405 _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user