Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 18:48 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 15:52 [+0100]:
> > Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 14:14 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > From your other responses, I now know it is actually related to
> > > (non-
> > >
Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 15:52 [+0100]:
> Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 14:14 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> > [...]
> >
> > From your other responses, I now know it is actually related to
> > (non-
> > )Java style finalisation, but my comment about ‘separate patch’
> > still
> >
Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 14:21 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 14:35 [+0100]:
> > Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 13:15 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> > > Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op do 15-07-2021 om 20:44 [+0200]:
> > > > + SCM *smobs = scm_gc_malloc
Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 14:14 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 14:55 [+0100]:
> > Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 13:48 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> > > Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 14:32 [+0100]:
> > > > > > - rx =
Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 14:35 [+0100]:
> Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 13:15 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> > Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op do 15-07-2021 om 20:44 [+0200]:
> > > + SCM *smobs = scm_gc_malloc (sizeof(SCM) * SMOBS_COUNT,
> > > "smobs");
> > > +
> > > int i;
> > >
Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 14:55 [+0100]:
> Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 13:48 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> > Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 14:32 [+0100]:
> > > > > - rx = scm_gc_malloc_pointerless (sizeof (regex_t),
> > > > > "regex");
> > > > > + rx = scm_malloc
Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 13:48 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 14:32 [+0100]:
> > > > - rx = scm_gc_malloc_pointerless (sizeof (regex_t), "regex");
> > > > + rx = scm_malloc (sizeof (regex_t));
> > >
> > > If the regex why scm_gc_malloc_pointerless
Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 14:53 [+0100]:
> [...]
> The straight-forward solution is to statically tie the lifetime of
> regex_t to that of the smob. Which we cannot do with GC, but simply
> with malloc+free - as implemented in the patch.
OK, but for clarity I recommend adding a
Maxime Devos schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 13:44 [+]:
> Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 14:40 [+0100]:
> > Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 13:35 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> > > Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 14:32 [+0100]:
> > > > > You coud simply ...
> > > > >
> > > > >
Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 13:44 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 14:40 [+0100]:
> > Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 13:35 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> > > Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 14:32 [+0100]:
> > > > > You coud simply ...
> > > > >
>
Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 14:32 [+0100]:
> > > - rx = scm_gc_malloc_pointerless (sizeof (regex_t), "regex");
> > > + rx = scm_malloc (sizeof (regex_t));
> >
> > If the regex why scm_gc_malloc_pointerless -> scm_malloc?
> > Is rx not pointerless?
>
> Not sure I understand the
Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 14:40 [+0100]:
> Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 13:35 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> > Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 14:32 [+0100]:
> > > > You coud simply ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > - scm_gc_free (rx, sizeof(regex_t), "regex");
> > >
Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 13:17 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op do 15-07-2021 om 20:44 [+0200]:
> > + /* For guardians, we use unordered finalization `a la Java. */
>
> Maybe add the reasons why this is only done when a guardian is created?
> E.g.,
>
> /* Don't use
Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 14:32 [+0100]:
> > You coud simply ...
> >
> >
> > > - scm_gc_free (rx, sizeof(regex_t), "regex");
> > > + free (rx);
> >
> > drop the scm_gc_free AFAIK.
>
> No, I cannot as explained in the patch summary: If we use scm_gc_free
> in a free
Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 13:35 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op vr 19-11-2021 om 14:32 [+0100]:
> > > You coud simply ...
> > >
> > >
> > > > - scm_gc_free (rx, sizeof(regex_t), "regex");
> > > > + free (rx);
> > >
> > > drop the scm_gc_free AFAIK.
> >
> >
Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 13:15 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op do 15-07-2021 om 20:44 [+0200]:
> > + SCM *smobs = scm_gc_malloc (sizeof(SCM) * SMOBS_COUNT, "smobs");
> > +
> > int i;
> > mark_call_count = 0;
> > for (i = 0; i < SMOBS_COUNT; i++)
> > -
Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 13:13 + schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op do 15-07-2021 om 20:44 [+0200]:
> > From 33af6a98c6801e7b4880d1d3f78f7e2097c2174e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> > 2001
> > From: Jonas Hahnfeld
> > Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 23:03:17 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH 2/3]
Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op do 15-07-2021 om 20:44 [+0200]:
> + /* For guardians, we use unordered finalization `a la Java. */
Maybe add the reasons why this is only done when a guardian is created?
E.g.,
/* Don't use unordered finalization when not using guardians,
because Java finalization
Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op do 15-07-2021 om 20:44 [+0200]:
> + SCM *smobs = scm_gc_malloc (sizeof(SCM) * SMOBS_COUNT, "smobs");
> +
> int i;
> mark_call_count = 0;
> for (i = 0; i < SMOBS_COUNT; i++)
> - make_x ();
> + smobs[i] = make_x ();
> scm_gc ();
smobs doesn't need to be
Jonas Hahnfeld schreef op do 15-07-2021 om 20:44 [+0200]:
> From 33af6a98c6801e7b4880d1d3f78f7e2097c2174e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> 2001
> From: Jonas Hahnfeld
> Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 23:03:17 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Avoid matching calls of scm_gc_free
>
> There is no point in registering
20 matches
Mail list logo
