On Wed 21 Mar 2012 22:02, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> See c05805a4ea764dec5a0559edefcdfb9761191d07 in stable-2.0 for the >> gnarly details. The summary is that applicable smobs were being leaked, >> because they were referenced in the values of weak-key tables. > > I was wondering whether removing ‘smob-call’ would break binary > compatibility, but presumably that instruction could not possibly end up > in user bytecode on disk, right?
Presumably not. It is documented, though. We can remove it, but its continued presence doesn't cost us anything. I'm OK with either option :) Cheers, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
