Re: gc suggestions

[Michael Livshin <mlivshin at bigfoot dot com>]

Dirk Herrmann <dirk@ida.ing.tu-bs.de> writes:

> After thinking a little bit about it I believe that it should even
> be possible to work around it: With cell access debugging in effect,
> the scm_gc_async is simply not activated after _every_ gc, but, say,
> after every 10000th gc or so.  This has the effect of 'simulating' a
> certain gc frequency for the scheme level, although the actual gc
> frequency is totally different.

what is the problem this solves, again?  (an answer along the lines of 
"don't be daft, read the previous mails" is perfectly fine).

> When looking at the current names, I think we should just use the existing
> hooks scm_before/after_gc_c_hook and should think of new names for the
> wrappers around the whole thing, like:
>   scm_before_potential_gc_c_hook;
>   if actual_gc {
>     scm_before_gc_c_hook
>     ...
>     scm_after_gc_c_hook
>     activate after-gc-hook async
>   }
>   scm_after_potential_gc_c_hook;
> 
> This should give us the necessary amount of control, while still being
> clean and symmetrical.  I will prepare a patch for it.

cool.  (you might as well check it in ;).

-- 
I think we might have been better off with a slide rule.
                -- Zaphod Beeblebrox