Bob Rogers wrote:
I couldn't agree more. Committed as r11609. Should I also get rid of
the CHUNKED_CTX_MEM references in interpreter.h?
Hmm, doesn't harm but is OTOH confusing. Maybe adding some comment would
be best for now.
-- Bob
leo
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:29:28 +0100
On Feb 14, 2006, at 4:06, Bob Rogers wrote:
>1. Closure still needs a destroy method, and having one is in fact
> sufficient to reclaim contexts that would otherwise be lost.
Ack.
Committed as
On Feb 14, 2006, at 4:06, Bob Rogers wrote:
1. Closure still needs a destroy method, and having one is in fact
sufficient to reclaim contexts that would otherwise be lost.
Ack.
2. In order to prove this (not to mention for debugging of
RetContinuation hackery), I added a fair amount
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 02:21:19 +0100
On Feb 4, 2006, at 22:04, Bob Rogers wrote:
[detailed plan]
>Sound good? Unless I've missed something, this seems like a win
> across the board . . .
Sounds very good.
Unfortunately, I may
On Feb 4, 2006, at 22:04, Bob Rogers wrote:
[detailed plan]
Sound good? Unless I've missed something, this seems like a win
across the board . . .
Sounds very good.
-- Bob Rogers
leo
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:49:00 +0100
Bob Rogers wrote:
>Worse, the closed-over frame is leaked entirely. (Is this what the
> "obviously leaks memory" comment in src/register.c is talking about, or
> are there other cases of leakage
