bug#20907: [PATCH] Manual bug for scm_gc_protect_object

2016-06-24 Thread Andy Wingo
On Wed 02 Sep 2015 20:34, Mike Gran writes: > On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 11:06 AM, Mark H Weaver > wrote: > >>Would it help to replace all uses of the term "scan" with "mark", in >>connection with garbage collection? In the papers I've read on GC, >>"mark" is the word I usually see, and

bug#20907: [PATCH] Manual bug for scm_gc_protect_object

2015-09-02 Thread Mike Gran
On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 11:06 AM, Mark H Weaver wrote: >Would it help to replace all uses of the term "scan" with "mark", in >connection with garbage collection? In the papers I've read on GC, >"mark" is the word I usually see, and it seems much clearer to me, >because anyone who knows

bug#20907: [PATCH] Manual bug for scm_gc_protect_object

2015-09-02 Thread Mark H Weaver
Mike Gran writes: > In the "Garbage Collection" of the manual in both 1.8 and 2.0, > it says that in 1.8, that "global variables of type SCM ... can be made > visible to the garbage collector by calling the functions scm_gc_protect". > (That's a typo I guess. It should say scm_gc_protect_object,

bug#20907: [PATCH] Manual bug for scm_gc_protect_object

2015-09-02 Thread Mark H Weaver
Mark H Weaver writes: > Mike Gran writes: > >>> On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 5:09 AM, Ludovic Courtès >>> wrote: >> >>> I think the manual is correct: global C variables were *not* scanned by >>> the GC. > >> For what it is worth, the effect that I was seeing that made me >> question the do

bug#20907: [PATCH] Manual bug for scm_gc_protect_object

2015-09-02 Thread Mark H Weaver
Mike Gran writes: >> On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 5:09 AM, Ludovic Courtès >> wrote: > >> I think the manual is correct: global C variables were *not* scanned by >> the GC. > For what it is worth, the effect that I was seeing that made me > question the documentation can be demonstrated by

bug#20907: [PATCH] Manual bug for scm_gc_protect_object

2015-09-02 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Mark H Weaver skribis: > Mike Gran writes: >> Manual claims C globals weren't scanned by GC in 1.8. The opposite >> is true. > > Ludovic wrote that text in 2009, commit > f07c349eb38d6c7b160b8980fc4007fb502e3433. I think the manual is correct: global C variables were *not* scanned by the GC.

bug#20907: [PATCH] Manual bug for scm_gc_protect_object

2015-09-01 Thread Mark H Weaver
Hi Mike, Mike Gran writes: > Manual claims C globals weren't scanned by GC in 1.8. The opposite > is true. Ludovic wrote that text in 2009, commit f07c349eb38d6c7b160b8980fc4007fb502e3433. Ludovic, what do you make of this? > * doc/ref/api-memory.texi [scm_gc_protect_object]: modified > --- >

bug#20907: [PATCH] Manual bug for scm_gc_protect_object

2015-06-26 Thread Mike Gran
Manual claims C globals weren't scanned by GC in 1.8. The opposite is true. * doc/ref/api-memory.texi [scm_gc_protect_object]: modified --- doc/ref/api-memory.texi | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/ref/api-memory.texi b/doc/ref/api-memory.texi index 0e37d16..3