Hi Andy,
Thanks a lot for looking into this and your response! Any idea when we
will have a stable 2.2 release that we can move to given that 2.1 has been
out for a few months.
Thanks,
Anand
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Hi :)
>
> On Mon 15 Dec 2014 07:36, Anand Mohanadoss <anand...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Here is what we changed in hashtab.c -
> >
> > 130a131
> >> size_t orig_len = len;
> > 137,138c138,144
> > < assert (removed <= len);
> > < len -= removed;
> > ---
> >> if (removed <= len)
> >> len -= removed;
> >> else
> >> {
> >> printf ("Vacuum weak hash table assert Table=%p len=%zi removed=%zi
> > orig_len=%zi n_items=%zi\n", table, len, removed, orig_len,
> > SCM_HASHTABLE_N_ITEMS (table));
> >> len = 0;
> >> }
> >
> > With this change, we got lines similar to the following printed
> > periodically -
> >
> > Vacuum weak hash table assert Table=0x9bdb840 len=0 removed=1
> > orig_len=2321 n_items=2321
>
> I guess printing a warning is not worse than crashing. I was unable to
> make this table work in a reliable way in 2.0 without rewriting it, so
> in 2.2 there's a new implementation with hopefully no bug in this
> regard.
>
> Ludovic what do you thing, should we just be sloppy in 2.0 and remove
> the assertion? I don't think it's fixable. The other option I see is
> to close as WONTFIX.
>
> Andy
>
