|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(04 Jan 2004 18:11 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
felix
(04 Jan 2004 19:25 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(04 Jan 2004 20:08 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(04 Jan 2004 21:13 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(04 Jan 2004 21:43 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(04 Jan 2004 22:59 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 00:50 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 01:19 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(05 Jan 2004 11:42 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 16:26 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(05 Jan 2004 17:49 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 18:24 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Michael Sperber
(05 Jan 2004 18:48 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 22:00 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Michael Sperber
(06 Jan 2004 07:42 UTC)
|
|
I don't believe in "(may GC)" Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 00:55 UTC)
|
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
Richard Kelsey
(05 Jan 2004 12:07 UTC)
|
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
Shiro Kawai
(05 Jan 2004 12:45 UTC)
|
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
bear
(05 Jan 2004 18:16 UTC)
|
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 16:35 UTC)
|
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
bear
(05 Jan 2004 17:54 UTC)
|
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
tb@xxxxxx
(06 Jan 2004 01:39 UTC)
|
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
Michael Sperber
(06 Jan 2004 07:39 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 01:05 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 01:12 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(05 Jan 2004 12:17 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 17:40 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Michael Sperber
(05 Jan 2004 19:03 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
tb@xxxxxx
(06 Jan 2004 01:37 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(06 Jan 2004 02:15 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(06 Jan 2004 02:29 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
tb@xxxxxx
(06 Jan 2004 02:31 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(06 Jan 2004 03:10 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
tb@xxxxxx
(06 Jan 2004 03:14 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(06 Jan 2004 04:06 UTC)
|
The draft FFI says:
double SCHEME_EXTRACT_DOUBLE(scheme_value)
char * SCHEME_EXTRACT_STRING(scheme_value)
Neither says "(may GC)".
I don't like that.
If I'm using some exotic number representation (constructive reals,
perhaps), then EXTRACT_DOUBLE may very well involve some pretty hairy,
hence possibly GC-causing, computation.
If I'm using some exotic string representations (I'm working on a
functional-splay-tree string type for Pika) -- same deal:
extract-string may take some (possibly GC-causing) work.
Even something innocent like:
int SCHEME_CHAR_P(scheme_value)
can cause GC if my implementation let's me attach to a hook in its
implementation.
In short, even if you are going to be stubborn about concurrent
threads or async execution an insist that GC can only happen "at
certain times" -- I'm not convinced that there is a single entry point
anywhere in the FFI which does not qualify for "(may GC)".
-t