Re: [gambit-list] Consistent, small program segmentation fault between 4.6.7 and 4.5.8
On Jun 7, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Bradley Lucier lucier@math.purdue.edu wrote:
On 06/07/2013 11:29 AM, Marc Feeley wrote:
So I have pushed a commit which reverts this back until I can investigate further and see which one of the uses of a signed integer were really required. Marc
Marc:
You didn't really revert it, you replaced one hack with a more complicated hack.
Perhaps you should really revert it and then come up with a different solution for the problem the first hack was trying to fix. Some of the SIZE_Ts replaced unsigned longs, so you're losing more information the more hacks you layer on top of each other.
Brad
No. Where there used to be a use of "long" there is now ___SIZE_TS and where there used to be a use of "unsigned long" there is now ___SIZE_T. There is no loss of information. It is true that it is not an actual "revert" textually, but semantically it is.
I want to commit a change that will allow you and others to keep on working with the latest version of Gambit, and at the same time serve as a reminder of the places I need to double check at a later time. I think 99% of the uses of ___SIZE_TS can be replaced with ___SIZE_T, but I haven't yet located the 1% where a signed type is used (adn at that point I will rename to ___SSIZE_T, and remove the definition of ___SIZE_TS).
I did verify that chud1.scm now works. So you should be able to continue with your work.
I would be interested in knowing if this commit fixes the memory management problems other people have encountered lately.
Marc
Afficher les réponses par date
It would seem that once in a while you do get to kill two birds with one stone even in computer science!
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Marc Feeley feeley@iro.umontreal.cawrote:
On Jun 7, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Bradley Lucier lucier@math.purdue.edu wrote:
On 06/07/2013 11:29 AM, Marc Feeley wrote:
So I have pushed a commit which reverts this back until I can
investigate further and see which one of the uses of a signed integer were really required. Marc
Marc:
You didn't really revert it, you replaced one hack with a more
complicated hack.
Perhaps you should really revert it and then come up with a different
solution for the problem the first hack was trying to fix. Some of the SIZE_Ts replaced unsigned longs, so you're losing more information the more hacks you layer on top of each other.
Brad
No. Where there used to be a use of "long" there is now ___SIZE_TS and where there used to be a use of "unsigned long" there is now ___SIZE_T. There is no loss of information. It is true that it is not an actual "revert" textually, but semantically it is.
I want to commit a change that will allow you and others to keep on working with the latest version of Gambit, and at the same time serve as a reminder of the places I need to double check at a later time. I think 99% of the uses of ___SIZE_TS can be replaced with ___SIZE_T, but I haven't yet located the 1% where a signed type is used (adn at that point I will rename to ___SSIZE_T, and remove the definition of ___SIZE_TS).
I did verify that chud1.scm now works. So you should be able to continue with your work.
I would be interested in knowing if this commit fixes the memory management problems other people have encountered lately.
Marc
Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
-
Guillaume Cartier -
Marc Feeley