This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes: > Greg Harvey writes: > > Personally, I'd rely more on the highly unlikely case of the > > conservative gc breaking, than the quite likely case of a programmer > > screwing up explicit marking > > As I've noted, though, we *could* pretty easily build tools to catch > this automatically. > Quite right, but will it even be possible to catch all uses that can cause problems? I would think maybe, but continuations & setjmp/longjmp are somewhat iffy. If we can't be 100% sure of catching all the problems, what benefit do we really achieve over conservative marking? We make execution time worse, still have some uncertainty over the correctness of the code (and the chances of fatal errors in messed up explicit marking seem larger to me than the chances of fatal errors in the conservative scan, though the optimized away variables really need to be addressed in a clean way), and have made life that much more annoying for the c side of things (I think it's annoying enough as it is ;). -- Greg