[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Let's throw out SCM_NEWCELL
From: |
Chris Cramer |
Subject: |
Re: Let's throw out SCM_NEWCELL |
Date: |
Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:58:57 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 02:50:37AM +0200, Dirk Herrmann wrote:
> I was the one who added scm_gc_mark_cell_conservatively (blush). I added
> it under the assumption, that a gc can happen _any_ time due to multi
> threading. If, however, we go the way that gc can only happen if all
> threads are gone to sleep or are known to be in some state where they
> won't disturb and won't be disturbed by gc, there would probably be no
> need for scm_gc_mark_cell_conservatively. This would then also fix the
> bug that you have described.
Alright, I removed scm_gc_mark_cell_conservatively and tested it. No
more segfaults. Since we only have coop threads at the moment, I suggest
we remove scm_gc_mark_cell_conservatively from stable.
--
C. Ray C. aka Christopher Cramer
address@hidden
http://www.pyro.net/~crayc/