[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code |
Date: |
22 Aug 2004 22:00:53 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
> Fsignal doesn't return, so the local variables of all frames within
> the innermost error handler or Lisp call frame are not going to be
> used again. Therefore, there is no need to protect any of them on
> Fsignal's account.
That's right.
> If it is really necessary to gcpro because you call a function that
> calls Fsignal, we would need to add lots of gcpros all around.
> So I think it would be better to change the mechanism to make
> this unnecessary.
I don't know if/why it would be necessary.
Maybe the mailing-list archive (or Gerd) remembers?
Stefan
- missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Dave Love, 2004/08/20
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Richard Stallman, 2004/08/21
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Stefan Monnier, 2004/08/21
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Richard Stallman, 2004/08/22
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Dave Love, 2004/08/23
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Richard Stallman, 2004/08/24
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Stefan Monnier, 2004/08/24
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Richard Stallman, 2004/08/25
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Dave Love, 2004/08/23