Hi Guilers! "Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/7/31 Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Hi, >> >> I just spent a couple days tracking down a bug in my code that was due >> to calling scm_without_guile when I wasn't actually in Guile. This >> exhibited itself as a deadlock at some point in the future when a >> scm_without_guile that was lower on the stack exited, it tried to take >> the heap lock when the first scm_without_guile had already, >> unnecessarily taken it. >> >> The solution of course is to not call scm_without_guile when you're not >> in guile. (My problem was actually that I had failed to call >> scm_with_guile when re-entering into some scheme code.) The following >> patch aborts if suspend() is called, but the thread was not in guile >> mode. Does it make sense to yall? > > Well it does to me. +1. >> I guess we should benchmark it, it's a >> pretty hot spot. > > I don't think so. I don't think one pointer reference will be > significant next to mutex locking. Indeed (not to mention the `setjmp ()' call). Thanks, Ludovic.
