Hi, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> skribis:
> On Wed 21 Mar 2012 22:02, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >>> See c05805a4ea764dec5a0559edefcdfb9761191d07 in stable-2.0 for the >>> gnarly details. The summary is that applicable smobs were being leaked, >>> because they were referenced in the values of weak-key tables. >> >> I was wondering whether removing ‘smob-call’ would break binary >> compatibility, but presumably that instruction could not possibly end up >> in user bytecode on disk, right? > > Presumably not. It is documented, though. We can remove it, but its > continued presence doesn't cost us anything. I'm OK with either option Right, we can leave it. Thanks! Ludo’.
