2009/1/16 :
> Neil Jerram wrote:
>> scm_init_guile has always been a bit problematic, as it requires lots
>> of heuristic and OS-dependent code to try to determine where the base
>> of the stack is. It's never been formally deprecated, but we have
>> always advised people to use scm_boot_gu
Neil Jerram wrote:
> scm_init_guile has always been a bit problematic, as it requires lots
> of heuristic and OS-dependent code to try to determine where the base
> of the stack is. It's never been formally deprecated, but we have
> always advised people to use scm_boot_guile or scm_with_gu
Linas Vepstas:
I feel obligated to respond, having made all sorts of noise.
2009/1/15 Neil Jerram :
whether people think that scm_init_guile is really needed.
kill it. there seem to be perfectly adequate ways of
living without it. Unfortunately, the current documentation
describing how to
in that list, the Snd xen.c case is not a true use -- that macro
is never true (because I apparently forgot to include it in my
configure script), so the code is never used. I probably had
gh_init 10 years ago, then changed it to scm_init_guile --
can't remember now.
Hi,
Linas Vepstas writes:
> So, the real question is -- how many existing guile
> apps call scm_init_guile()?
The Evil Empire's Codesearch reveals that yes, a number of applications
use it:
http://google.com/codesearch?q=scm_init_guile&hl=en&btnG=Search+Code
This may be partly due to the fa
Hi!
"Neil Jerram" writes:
> 2009/1/15 Neil Jerram :
>>
>> Thoughts? On the other hand, does moving to BDW-GC take a lot of this
>> out of our hands anyway?
>
> From a quick look, it seems the answer to that is "yes", and hence
> moving to BDW-GC will mean that we can keep scm_init_guile with no
