On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 21:20 +0100, Christian Mauduit wrote: > I found out that the problem disappeared when I decided to make my free > callback (the one set up with scm_set_smob_free) return systematically a > value of 0. I understand the return value of this function should > reflect the amount of freed memory and be a hint for Guile to optimize > memory management. Point is I do not use scm_must_malloc to allocate > memory and Guile doesn't know when I allocate memory. > > It's a design option of my program to have independent chunk of codes > (libraries in fact) which are absolutely not aware that they are used in > a Guile context, so allocating memory with scm_must_malloc does not > really make sense for them. In fact it's not even acceptable, one could > wish to use these objects without using Guile at all.
Maybe this suggestion is worthless, but: many independent libraries carry global variables for exactly this reason, for the memory allocation functions they use, so that library users can change how memory is allocated, such as with the `dmalloc' functions. As for the differing signatures of scm_must_malloc and malloc, you could wash over either with a utility function, or even use the WHAT argument to add more details to your memory statistics [in debug mode only, of course!] or just in-source documentation of your mallocations. -- Stephen Compall http://scompall.nocandysw.com/blog
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
