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: Implementation of the promise smob Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:43:24 -0700 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1282279242 7873 80.91.229.12 (20 Aug 2010 04:40:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 04:40:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org, Tibi Turbureanu To: Abhijeet More Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Aug 20 06:40:41 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@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 1OmJPE-0006n7-DD for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 06:40:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33504 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OmJPD-0006i3-FP for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:40:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42502 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OmJOu-0006hA-T5 for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:40:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OmJOt-00044o-L1 for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:40:20 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:53570 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OmJOt-00044i-DC for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:40:19 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C499DCFAE3; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:40:18 -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=yNCRYO+AG4L2VUPzqC7r90RCRt8=; b=exwLx8 a6cGaOXWnMw4jUsf2AzsSdLT6DTN1rOHw3mWZOTH1GCrFXjV+0Fr/XBLg9QM5Mb6 8mIGoIzlEEg41ATgW4ZP1ZXQ2j2Ih+XFUr1z5mbTz2/rVKFRuu1JRsxyostkI9Vd hRA1yn02F9I7EFvRDZ+nU+Fyzu8ymM5VLVvAI= 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=ViqZ/jIeRGzkeRcDRNPKRfQ+A96+Ps1f RCrcNtD3DMZGU1N2hzVq+jVRTAi9fxPsndh2OceWFdBmlPQtYX7BwuRd1elGs+vh KbYx8OCpPvWAxbAbf6cqrkcI7L5XniYqbzsz/3L/zeQl5ucH0onymvdNUatI6ybD IllooyDatwg= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD0ECFAE2; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:40:16 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (unknown [76.166.198.241]) (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 1B80ACFAE1; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:40:13 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Abhijeet More's message of "Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:10:20 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 079A99B8-AC15-11DF-9EA7-9056EE7EF46B-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) 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:8087 Archived-At: On Thu 19 Aug 2010 19:10, Abhijeet More writes: > Hi, > I noticed that the implementation of the "promise" smob did not have > any "mark" function defined. > This smob does contain a couple of other SCM objects. > > Can someone explain how these objects are not cleared up by the gc > (since nobody marks them as live)? If you do not provide a mark function, the GC will treat all words in an object as pointers, and mark them. The problem, I think, is not that the promise refers to its value: it is that something is mistakenly referring to the promise (and thence to the value). Andy -- http://wingolog.org/