Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] dynamic trace buffer resizing

[Jim Ursetto]

On Aug 12, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Peter Bex <address@hidden> wrote:

>> Looks useful.  Could it perhaps be more useful to make the argument
>> to C_resize_trace_buffer a regular size_t instead of a Scheme fixnum?
>> That might make it slightly more usable from an embedded situation.

Sure -- but C_trace_buffer_size is an int.  That's why I used int ;)  I could 
certainly fix that at the source, shall I?

> Also, why is a maximum size necessary, and why is it so small?

It's not.  But there's a minimum size, so I figured naturally there should be a 
maximum size, if only to eliminate accidentally or maliciously resizing the 
trace buffer to an arbitrary extent.  There are also max caps on some other 
resources.  Since it's a ring buffer, I suppose there are no *performance* 
problems with a trace buffer of large size, just potentially memory usage.  The 
default is also arbitrary.  I could either eliminate the limit or raise the 
default, your call.

Actually, I just realized the arg isn't checked to be a fixnum.  I'll change 
that when I incorporate any suggestions.

Jim