> Blocking this propagation of removes may also have the effect
> of damaging packages that were already supposedly taken off
> the list if somebody does a redundant make-package call.
Of course, this might be better fixed in make-package...
Incidentally, is this ghost package list thread-safe?
> I think this time I got it right -- your change was not entirely correct:
> imagine a FASL that does not exit read_VV but starts a toplevel. Then
> cl_core.packages_to_be_created might have the wrong value.
Anything called before read_VV exits and restores the var will be
in the context that all
I think this time I got it right -- your change was not entirely correct:
imagine a FASL that does not exit read_VV but starts a toplevel. Then
cl_core.packages_to_be_created might have the wrong value.
Juanjo
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Alexander Gavrilov wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll <
> Ok, that should be fixed now. We just have to make sure that no other errors
> went unnoticed due to the one we have just fixed.
This fixes the fix. Otherwise even swank cannot be loaded from fasl...
-
