Re: removing scm_gc_mark_conservatively()

[Marius Vollmer]

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> > As the real solution, I have proposed removing SCM_NEWCELL completely,
> > and only provide means (a function or a macro) for simultaneously
> > allocating and initializing a new cell.  In the deprecation period,
> 
> In principle, yes, this would be nice.  And it will work in at least 90%
> of the cases.  However, as stated in the above mentioned thread, there are
> some places where this initialization scheme will not work nicely, because
> the a priory computation of the initialization values can't be done
> without some hassle.

But it will be possible, and correct, right?  The idea is to
concentrate allocation and initialization to a few lines of code that
can do whatever is needed.  We can do things different depending on
whether we want to support preemptive threading, or not, for example.

What kind of hassle are you thinking of?  Self-referential structures
require two step initialization, but that's OK, I say.

> Just for clarification:  The scm_tc16_allocated cells would then be
> conservatively scanned during gc, right?

Yes, like they are now.