On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Moritz Heidkamp <mor...@twoticketsplease.de > wrote:
> Hi Alex, > > On 24 February 2015 00:13 CET, Alex Shinn wrote: > > > You may be falling short of the issue described by SRFI 45, > > which is that in all known Scheme implementations: > > > > (define (loop) (delay (force (loop)))) > > (force (loop)) > > > > leaks memory. In R7RS this becomes > > > > (define (loop) (delay-force (loop))) > > > > which is required by the standard not to leak. > > > > I'm not sure why you don't observe a leak in the > > second example. > > Kooda and I discussed this issue on IRC yesterday and in fact, the first > version doesn't leak when compiled either (he mixed up results when > writing this email). So either the CHICKEN compiler is the first Scheme > implementation to not leak memory in this case or something else is > going on :-) > Well, if lazy-seq doesn't actually use delay + force then it's not an exception :) I double checked, and for the code I wrote with delay + force, Chicken leaks both interpreted and compiled. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
