Re: What's the deal with the module system?

[David Kastrup]

Neil Puttock <address@hidden> writes:

> 2009/11/24 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>
>> After applying <URL:http://codereview.appspot.com/160048> first,
>> indeed the following diff that throws out all the toplevel scoping
>> constructs and separate definitions of define-markup-command and
>> define-markup-list-command passes the regressions tests.  Furthermore,
>> tests show that the namespace of markups defined in one input file does
>> not extend into the next input file.
>
> As far as I can see, all you've done is effectively revert Nicolas's
> code which fixed the memory leaks, so I can't see why it would work.

Fixed the memory leaks.  Something new every day.  Why tell me all the
time that the purpose of the code was scoping, then?

Since the code registers properties and functions permanently, sure it
will work as a memory leak between multiple sessions.  I was worrying
about the action of the code.

It is easy enough to turn off this registration for user level code.
That might already do the job.

> I've just applied your patch, and as expected, I get the following
> errors with nearly every file (using a binary compiled with
> --disable-optimising):

I did not use --disable-optimising.

> programming error: Parsed object should be dead: static
> scm_unused_struct* Prob::mark_smob(scm_unused_struct*)
> continuing, cross fingers
> programming error: Parsed object should be dead: static
> scm_unused_struct* Context_def::mark_smob(scm_unused_struct*)
> continuing, cross fingers
>
> Furthermore, make check segfaults if I use -j2.

I have my doubts -j2 is concerned with the patch other than accidently.

Our results are so different that I have my suspicion this might also
depend on the guile version used.  1.8.7 here.

-- 
David Kastrup