Re: What's the deal with the module system?

[David Kastrup]

Neil Puttock <address@hidden> writes:

> 2009/11/24 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>
>> After applying <URL:http://codereview.appspot.com/160048> first,
>> indeed the following diff that throws out all the toplevel scoping
>> constructs and separate definitions of define-markup-command and
>> define-markup-list-command passes the regressions tests.  Furthermore,
>> tests show that the namespace of markups defined in one input file does
>> not extend into the next input file.
>
> As far as I can see, all you've done is effectively revert Nicolas's
> code which fixed the memory leaks, so I can't see why it would work.
>
> I've just applied your patch, and as expected, I get the following
> errors with nearly every file (using a binary compiled with
> --disable-optimising):
>
> programming error: Parsed object should be dead: static
> scm_unused_struct* Prob::mark_smob(scm_unused_struct*)
> continuing, cross fingers
> programming error: Parsed object should be dead: static
> scm_unused_struct* Context_def::mark_smob(scm_unused_struct*)
> continuing, cross fingers

I can't reproduce this with guile-1.8.7 and g++-4.4.1 from Ubuntu 9.10.

The memory leak might possible be dealt with by putting the following
code into markup-init.ly:

%% -*- Mode: Scheme -*-

\version "2.12.0"

% For documentation purposes

% We add local bindings here to have the data structures go out of
% scope at the end of the top module.

% category -> markup functions
#(define markup-functions-by-category (make-hash-table 150))
% markup function -> used properties
#(define markup-functions-properties (make-hash-table 150))
% List of markup list functions
#(define markup-list-function-list (list))

> Furthermore, make check segfaults if I use -j2.

No idea about the relation to the patch.

-- 
David Kastrup