[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is my procedure getting GCed?
From: |
Dale P. Smith |
Subject: |
Re: Is my procedure getting GCed? |
Date: |
Tue, 01 May 2001 23:15:53 -0400 |
Marius Vollmer wrote:
>
> Brett Viren <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > To avoid all this by-hand protecting/unprotecting I instead could
> > handle this by accessing all SCM values via a lightweight C++
> > Handler class and deal with protect/unprotect by overriding
> > operator=().
>
> Another option is to `promote' all your C++ objects to Scheme objects
> and have them managed by the GC. You would do this with `smobs'. For
> each of your classes, you would have to write a `marking' routine that
> call `scm_gc_mark' on all SCM objects contained in an instance of this
> class. The instance itself will be wrapped in a smob and passed
> around as a SCM, too. This might be more efficient than using
> protect/unprotect as well.
I'd love to see an example of this. Maybe something for the (quite
excellent) manual?
-Dale
--
Dale P. Smith
Treasurer, Cleveland Linux Users Group http://cleveland.lug.net
Senior Systems Consultant, Altus Technologies Corporation
address@hidden
440-746-9000 x309
- Re: Is my procedure getting GCed?, (continued)
- Re: Is my procedure getting GCed?, Brett Viren, 2001/05/01
- Re: Is my procedure getting GCed?, Bill Gribble, 2001/05/01
- Re: Is my procedure getting GCed?, Michael Livshin, 2001/05/01
- Re: Is my procedure getting GCed?, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/05/07
- Re: Is my procedure getting GCed?, Michael Livshin, 2001/05/07
- Re: Is my procedure getting GCed?, Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/14
- Re: Is my procedure getting GCed?, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/05/14
- Re: Is my procedure getting GCed?, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/05/15
- Re: Is my procedure getting GCed?, Brett Viren, 2001/05/01
- Re: Is my procedure getting GCed?, Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/01
- Re: Is my procedure getting GCed?,
Dale P. Smith <=
- Re: Is my procedure getting GCed?, Jed Davis, 2001/05/02