2009/1/16 Andy Wingo :
>
> If I thought that we'd keep our GC, I would work at inlining this
> function, i think.
It seems like a lot of things are starting to depend on whether or not
we move to BDW-GC. (This, the fix I just did for NetBSD,
scm_init_guile, forthcoming work on threads and mutex l
2009/1/16 Greg Troxel :
> [2. application/octet-stream;
> 0001-Don-t-try-to-unlock-already-unlocked-heap-mutex.patch]...
>
> With that patch, make check runs successfully.
> log at
>
> http://autobuild.josefsson.org/guile/log-200901161104820417000.txt
>
> thanks for the fix.
That's good; I've pus
Hello!
Andy Wingo writes:
> I dropped into cachegrind, and it tells me thing about scm_gc_mark in a
> simple guile -c 1 run:
>
> . void
> . scm_gc_mark (SCM ptr)
> 794,344 {
> 155,170 => ???:0x00024917 (77585x)
> 198,586if (SCM_IMP (ptr))
> . return;
> .
"Neil Jerram" writes:
> It seems like a lot of things are starting to depend on whether or not
> we move to BDW-GC. (This, the fix I just did for NetBSD,
> scm_init_guile, forthcoming work on threads and mutex locking
> inconsistencies, ...) We should aim to reach a definitive decision on
> thi
2009/1/15 Ludovic Courtès :
> "Neil Jerram" writes:
>
>> 2009/1/15 Greg Troxel :
>
>>> INSTALL is checked in, but gets overwritten by autoreconf. It seems
>>> like since this is a generated file it should not be checked in.
>>
>> Yes, that might be sensible. Ludovic, what do you think?
>
> Eit
Hi,
"Neil Jerram" writes:
> 2009/1/5 Ludovic Courtès :
>> 1. The lack of `gc-live-object-stats'.
>
> I doubt it's a stopper, but current `gc-live-object-stats' is quite
> nice. Doesn't libgc have a lightweight object-collected hook that
> would allow us to implement this? Or is it the proble
>> We could ship a C compatibility header as Andy suggested, but I'm not
>> sure it's 100% needed.
>
> Is your view on this a strong one? I feel fairly sure that we ought
> to continue to distribute this code - but in a deprecated and
> undocumented separate library - because I think by doing so w
Hey!
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Tue 13 Jan 2009 23:45, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> s/toplevel/top-level/
>
> Ooh, this one is painful -- I feel like if it changes in the docs it
> should change in the code too. Do you really think this is the right
> thing? top-level-ref ? ?
Cod
