Hi,
On Sat 17 Apr 2010 22:48, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Clinton Ebadi writes:
>
>> I talked to wingo, and he suggested that (equal? WEAK-VECTOR VECTOR) =>
>> #f;
>
> Hmm what’s the motivation? It seems more intuitive to me to have, e.g.,
>
> (equal? (make-vector 3 4) (make-weak
Hi!
Clinton Ebadi writes:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
[...]
>> The patch looks good to me, modulo a few things:
>>
>> - Could you make it 3 (or 4?) different patches, each with a test case
>> showing what is being fixed?
>>
>> - If that’s fine with you, you’ll need to assi
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> For these last two things, we’d need to modify the ‘vector-ref’ and
> ‘vector-set’ instructions so that they do the right thing. The best
> solution would be to just call scm_c_vector_{ref,set_x} when
> SCM_I_WVECTP, so that the overhead remains low for re
On Mon 05 Apr 2010 19:03, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> For these last two things, we’d need to modify the ‘vector-ref’ and
> ‘vector-set’ instructions so that they do the right thing. The best
> solution would be to just call scm_c_vector_{ref,set_x} when
> SCM_I_WVECTP, so that the o
Hi!
Clinton Ebadi writes:
> Attached is a patch that should improve weak vectors and prevent
> `vector-ref' from segfaulting on them after a GC.
>
> The root of the problem was that weak vectors were being allocated as
> containing no pointers *and* disappearing links were not being
> registered
Attached is a patch that should improve weak vectors and prevent
`vector-ref' from segfaulting on them after a GC.
The root of the problem was that weak vectors were being allocated as
containing no pointers *and* disappearing links were not being
registered for initial elements. If you, however,
