GNU bug report logs -
#10519
guile and (mini-)gmp
Previous Next
Full log
Message #11 received at 10519 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org> writes:
> Don't worry about this. I have a patch set that (among other things)
> reimplements scm_i_big2dbl in a much more robust way, with proper
> rounding, and without using such low-level GMP accessors. I posted this
> patch set to guile-devel on 7 Oct, "[PATCH] Improvements to exact
> rationals et al". I will resubmit it soon.
Nice! I take it you mean
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2011-10/msg00004.html?
Please let me know when you post a new revision. I'm not subscribed to
any guile lists.
> nisse <at> lysator.liu.se (Niels Möller) writes:
>> 4. mini-gmp has no mp_set_memory_functions.
> No, it's much worse than that. If most of the memory being allocated
> are bignums, then GC might not be run until the heap is quite large.
Will that be a problem in the cases where mini-gmp is relevant? I
imagine bignums will usually be at most a dozen limbs, so the storage
for limbs should just be a small factor larger than the storage for the
mpz_t structs (which are allocated in scheme objects, I assume).
> It would be good if you could duplicate the `mp_set_memory_functions'
> interface in mini-gmp.
I'll consider doing that, then. Are there any alternatives? I guess it
should be possible (but maybe inconvenient) to examine the allocation
count of each constructed bignum object and inform the gc. I imagine the
bignum objects in guile are immutable once created?
Regards,
/Niels
--
Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.
This bug report was last modified 8 years and 217 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.