On Fri 31 Mar 2017 13:33, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> skribis: > > The allocations that trigger ‘after-gc-hook’ could be caused by a > separate thread, right? That’s probably an acceptable limitation, but > one to be aware of.
Ah yes, we should document this. Sadly we just don't have very good metrics here. > Also, if the code does: > > (make-bytevector (expt 2 32)) > > then ‘after-gc-hook’ run too late, as the comment notes. Yep. > IIUC ‘@@’ in unavailable in the returned module, right? Correct. You could put it there but that's a bad ideal. > Isn’t make-fresh-user-module + purify-module! equivalent to just > (make-module)? No, beautify-user-module! does a few more things too. I was thinking that we would want to be able to work on the public interface of the module so I wanted to make sure it was there but in retrospect we don't need it and can probably simplify things I guess. >> ;; These can only form part of a safe binding set if no mutable >> ;; pair is exposed to the sandbox. >> (define *mutating-pair-bindings* >> '(((guile) >> set-car! >> set-cdr!))) > > When used on a literal pair (mapped read-only), these can cause a > segfault. Now since the code is ‘eval’d, the only literal pairs it can > see are those passed by the caller I suppose, so this may be safe? Who knows. I mean vector-set! can also cause segfaults. I think we should fix that situation to throw an exception. >> (define *all-pure-and-impure-bindings* >> (append *all-pure-bindings* > > Last but not least: why all the stars? :-) > I’m used to ‘%something’. For me I read % as being pronounced "sys" and indicating internal bindings. Why do you use it for globals? Is it your proposal that we use it for globals? Andy
