Hi,
Andy Wingo skribis:
> On Wed 21 Mar 2012 22:02, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>>> See c05805a4ea764dec5a0559edefcdfb9761191d07 in stable-2.0 for the
>>> gnarly details. The summary is that applicable smobs were being leaked,
>>> because they were referenced in the values of weak-
On Wed 21 Mar 2012 22:02, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> See c05805a4ea764dec5a0559edefcdfb9761191d07 in stable-2.0 for the
>> gnarly details. The summary is that applicable smobs were being leaked,
>> because they were referenced in the values of weak-key tables.
>
> I was wondering w
Hi!
Andy Wingo skribis:
> I just fixed a long-standing memory leak in Guile 2.0. (I say that like
> I'm proud or something, but of course I was the one the introduced it in
> the first place!)
Excellent!
> See c05805a4ea764dec5a0559edefcdfb9761191d07 in stable-2.0 for the
> gnarly details. T
Hi all,
I just fixed a long-standing memory leak in Guile 2.0. (I say that like
I'm proud or something, but of course I was the one the introduced it in
the first place!)
See c05805a4ea764dec5a0559edefcdfb9761191d07 in stable-2.0 for the
gnarly details. The summary is that applicable smobs were
