Hi Marius,
Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I still have to read your patch carefully, but just from your
> description of the problem, I would say that nothing is actually
> wrong. We don't make any guarantees about the sequence in which
> objects are 'freed' that are unreachable.
>
Ludovic Courtès wrote:
The patch fixes `scm_i_mark_weak_vector_non_weaks ()'. This way, a
value attached to a weak key will only become unmarked during the mark
phase _after_ the mark phase during which its weak key became unmarked.
You might want to re-read this sentence carefully. ;-)
Does
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does your patch solve the problem that cyclical structures (values that
> point back to keys) should also be GC-ed?
I guess you're talking about cyclical structures in doubly-weak alist
vectors. If so, it apparently does since if both WEAK_VALUES a
Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Does your patch solve the problem that cyclical structures (values that
point back to keys) should also be GC-ed?
I guess you're talking about cyclical structures in doubly-weak alist
vectors. If so, it apparently does since if both WEAK_VALUES and
WEAK_KEYS are false i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> For instance, while
> testing weakly-key alist vectors "by hand" in a REPL, it occurred to
> me that the weak-key pair would reliably die, *unless* the hash
> table was written (I mean using `write'):
I may have struck that or somethi
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>> For instance, while
>> testing weakly-key alist vectors "by hand" in a REPL, it occurred to
>> me that the weak-key pair would reliably die, *unless* the hash
>> table was written (I mean usi
