[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: when GC is permitted

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 50 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 50 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

    > From: Eric Knauel <knauel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

    > I'm very confident that migrating those bindings to the SRFI-FFI is
    > not much work.  Checking whether the GC annotations are (still)
    > correct and a few search/replace-operations should be enough.  

At least for the regex1.c and syscalls1.c code, that's false.

Not that I think checking the GC annotations is a small task -- I
think the fact that you already say that's necessary raises the
question of the cost (in labor and impact on the world) of converting
to the draft vs the cost of converting to a more general FFI.

But the nested cons bug in syscalls1.c, the nested enter_fixnum bug in
regex1.c, and the boolean comparisons using C operators in syscalls1.c
illustrate that beyond search/replace and tweaking GC annotation
expressions need to be examined individually and in some cases
rewritten, including a need for new (gc protected) local variable