l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andreas Rottmann writes:
>
>> Will going from a precise GC to BDW-GC not have drawbacks? IIRC, the PLT
>> people went in the opposite direction. A quick google turned up this:
>>
>> http://www.cs.brown.edu/pipermail/plt-scheme/2006-June/013840.html
>>
>> I
Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> > Also, there are definite benefits to using a conservative GC for
> > libguile, given how tightly it can be integrated with C (e.g., [2]).
> >
> My main concern is/was that by moving to a conservatice GC, and
> _consequentl
On Sep 3, 2009, at 17:04, Ken Raeburn wrote:
[...] Scheme compilation bug is still there, though.
I'm still not sure where the bug is, but here's what I've traced
through so far;
The error is happening in eval.i.c, line number in the high 800s (I've
got a bunch of tracing lines added in m
