On Fri 25 Mar 2011 19:44, Andy Wingo writes:
>>> I think that in 2.2 we should not expose libgc interfaces in libguile,
>>
>> That would be great, but then ‘scm_cell’, ‘SCM_NEWSMOB’, etc. would
>> need to do a function call, which we don’t want. Even if we did want
>> it, the change would break
Hi!
On Wed 30 Mar 2011 18:15, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hello!
>
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> On Mon 28 Mar 2011 22:40, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
> 1. Disable pthread redirects and instead register threads explicitly
> (in ‘scm_with_guile’).
> OK,
Hello!
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Mon 28 Mar 2011 22:40, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
1. Disable pthread redirects and instead register threads explicitly
(in ‘scm_with_guile’).
>>>
>>> Why is this only applicable to 2.1 ?
>>
>> I was thinking it’d break the ABI, but ma
On Mon 28 Mar 2011 22:40, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>> 1. Disable pthread redirects and instead register threads explicitly
>>> (in ‘scm_with_guile’).
>>
>> Why is this only applicable to 2.1 ?
>
> I was thinking it’d break the ABI, but maybe not?
I don't think it does break
Hello,
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Mon 28 Mar 2011 21:22, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> The problem is that libgc ends up being initialized behind our back upon
>> the first libgc-redirected ‘pthread_create’ call.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> Hans Boehm suggested [0] two solutions:
>>
>> 1. Disa
Greets :)
On Mon 28 Mar 2011 21:22, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> The problem is that libgc ends up being initialized behind our back upon
> the first libgc-redirected ‘pthread_create’ call.
Indeed.
> Hans Boehm suggested [0] two solutions:
>
> 1. Disable pthread redirects and inst
Hello!
Andy Wingo writes:
>>> Sure. Sorry for the precipitous action. That said, this bug has been
>>> open since September: https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?32436
>>
>> Oh indeed, I hadn’t realized there’s a connection; still...
>
> Do you have any thoughts on that bug,
The problem is that li
Greets :)
On Sun 27 Mar 2011 17:11, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Internally we should still inline scm_cell & co., though; that can be
> done without exposing in public headers I guess. (Actually,
> we should inline scm_cons, too, internally.)
Agreed.
>>> A meta-comment: can we ag
Hello!
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Fri 25 Mar 2011 19:06, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Andy Wingo writes:
[...]
>>> I think that in 2.2 we should not expose libgc interfaces in libguile,
>>
>> That would be great, but then ‘scm_cell’, ‘SCM_NEWSMOB’, etc. would
>> need to do a funct
Hi,
On Fri 25 Mar 2011 19:06, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> I think we made a mistake in exposing bdw-gc.h to libguile.h users.
>> gc.h is quite scrupulous to not include it, but smob.h, inline.h
>> (sometimes), and pthread-threads.h pull it in.
>
> is intenti
Hello,
Andy Wingo writes:
> I think we made a mistake in exposing bdw-gc.h to libguile.h users.
> gc.h is quite scrupulous to not include it, but smob.h, inline.h
> (sometimes), and pthread-threads.h pull it in.
is intentionally pulled because our public headers
use macros and inlines from .
Hi,
To follow up on this,
On Fri 25 Mar 2011 10:38, Andy Wingo writes:
> that is that we enable pthread redirects -- so users of libguile get
> pthread_create et al re-#defined.
This was causing http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.bugs/5340.
> I think that in 2.2 we should not expose li
Hello,
I think we made a mistake in exposing bdw-gc.h to libguile.h users.
gc.h is quite scrupulous to not include it, but smob.h, inline.h
(sometimes), and pthread-threads.h pull it in.
Besides the modularity concerns that lead us to need to add bdw-gc libs
and cflags to Guile's libs and cflags,
13 matches
Mail list logo
