[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The relationship between SCM and scm_t_bits.
From: |
Marius Vollmer |
Subject: |
Re: The relationship between SCM and scm_t_bits. |
Date: |
Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:12:27 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:
> This did not answer my question from my previous mail, where I asked
> you for a clear statement about whether this style of coding is to be
> considered discouraged: Is there a strategy towards a generational gc,
> or not? Shall new code make use of the *LOC accessors or shall
> developers avoid it?
There is no strategy towards a generational GC or any other scheme
that requires a write-barrier.
I'd say we could 'discourage' the *LOC accessors. We then need to
have Guile itself stop using them. (See NEWS for an explanation of
'discouraged'.)
I will answer the rest later. I really don't want to put much more
thought into this, anyway. To me, SCM and scm_t_bits are the same
type (the machine word), only that SCM is rigged to trick the compiler
into not allowing certain operations that we don't want to allow.