>>>>> "thi" == Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
thi> From: Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
thi> Date: 02 May 2002 13:59:06 +0100
thi> The copy in scm_unmemocopy, which looks as though it might be
thi> intended to fix this problem [...]
thi> was this used previously? (i'm trying to crawl inside the head of
thi> whoever wrote it this way in the first place.)
I don't know. The most likely ChangeLog entry I can find is `Tue Aug
20 18:48:40 1996 Mikael Djurfeldt', which describes the initial
addition of scm_unmemocopy.
thi> Fix isn't very elegant, though;
thi> is there a nicer way of doing this?
thi> both the old way and the new way involve mutating some nested list
thi> structure, so i'm guessing that doesn't play into "elegance".
No; the new way doesn't mutate at all. It creates a new environment
that shares some substructure with the old environment.
thi> i'm wondering what is it about this fix that makes it not
thi> very elegant?
My fix may use more consing than it needs to. Where possible, I feel
that mutation is desirable because it's faster and doesn't encourage
the GC. So perhaps there's a fix that still works but with fewer than
3 new pairs.
thi> 2. Rerun of problem scenarios:
thi> cool. this touches upon the need to extend the testing framework to
thi> handle interactive cases. actually, i believe that's already possible
thi> w/ the current framework via (ice-9 expect); the limitation really is
thi> that all tests share an execution environment -- this is fine for the
thi> most part, but undesirable for this kind of bug.
But, does this test need a different execution environment? It's true
for any existing test case that, if it causes a SEGV, the following
test cases won't run. This doesn't worry us much because SEGVs aren't
an important part of our plans :-)
Neil
_______________________________________________
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
