This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 18 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 18 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Blandy <jimb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I understand what you're saying, but you haven't addressed my concern >> (re-quoted above) at all. Jim> I'm sorry I misunderstood you. >> >> I *want* the C stack to be unwound, so that the Scheme >> >> heap references in the C activation records get freed Jim> Well... I *don't* want the C stack to be unwound --- yet. :) That C Jim> stack frame is still live, because S2 might yet return. So its heap Jim> references should not be freed. Jim> The discipline I've described has more expressive power than the one Jim> you described. In order to provide that additional power, we have to Jim> keep that C stack frame around longer, because we can't be sure yet Jim> that we don't still need it. It's still potentially relevant to the Jim> computation, so we can't throw it away. Sure, but I don't think SML/NJ actually *detects* that it's still relevant. (The GC could, I guess.) This means that the retained C frame may still keep data alive which is really dead. This might create a space leak. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla