Re: port-for-each vs lazy sweep

[Kevin Ryde]

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> In the latter case, GC would modify the port table, potentially beneath
> the feet of functions that iterate over it, or that cached indices
> within the table, things like that.

I think you're meant to hold scm_i_port_table_mutex if looking at or
modifying the table.  Probably have to make sure not to provoke a gc
during that, something I think flush-all doesn't ensure.  (Maybe ought
to rewrite flush-all in terms of port-for-each.)