Re: Rational

[David Kastrup]

Hans Åberg <address@hidden> writes:

>> On 23 May 2018, at 18:36, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> Hans Åberg <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>>> On 23 May 2018, at 18:12, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hans Åberg <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> I ended up using GC_malloc_uncollectable, because it turned out too
>>>>> tricky to use malloc.
>>>> 
>>>> This is C++, so we basically end up with operator ::new and operator
>>>> ::delete unless overriden by individual classes.  They use
>>> 
>>> This what they suggest for the Boehm GC, and it is what caused
>>> problems in my program.
>> 
>> Likely because of the expectation that it would be managed by the Boehm
>> GC.  The Guilev2 documentation states:
>> 
>>       For memory that is not associated with a Scheme object, you can
>>    use ‘scm_malloc’ instead of ‘malloc’.  Like ‘scm_gc_malloc’, it will
>>    either return a valid pointer or signal an error.  However, it will
>>    not assume that the new memory block can be freed by a garbage
>>    collection.  The memory must be explicitly freed with ‘free’.
>> 
>> So memory allocated with the standard allocator in a Guile application
>> is not managed by the Boehm GC.
>
> The object has a container with GC objects, so using using standard
> allocation for the container causes the GC to not trace the objects in
> the container, and will thus collect them.

If you bothered looking at the LilyPond code base, you'll find that _no_
STL containers are created containing SCM objects in the expectation
that they will automagically marked for garbage collection.  Any STL
container containing SCM objects is either locally used for existing SCM
objects protected elsewhere, or its containing object is SCM controlled
and uses mark hooks for marking the elements of the STL container during
garbage collection scans.  There are even mechanisms for making sure
that the STL containers are fully initialized before a derived class may
have its mark hook triggered.

>>>>> And I found no reference to it in LilyPond, so I got curious about
>>>>> how you do it. But you are not going to tell me, so forget about it.
>>>> 
>>>> You know, if you actually bothered _asking_, you'd increase your
>>>> chances of getting an answer.
>>> 
>>> Typically when the item is brought up people would say "Yes, we use
>>> this or that", rather than long bodies of text with no such
>>> information.
>> 
>> If you want an answer, ask a question.  Just stating something in the
>> hope that the correction will work as an answer is trying your luck.
>
> I will try to remember that these are your rules.

You'll find that most humans operate in that manner.  Just stating
something potentially erroneous and then seeing what diagnostics you get
is how you talk with computers.  Computers have no feelings, so they
don't get annoyed in this manner.  Humans happen to be different.

-- 
David Kastrup