Re: segfault in scm_gc_mark?

[Lynn Winebarger <owinebar at free-expression dot org>]

On 3 Nov 1999, Greg Harvey wrote:

> Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@free-expression.org> writes:
> 
> > Is there any reason I should get a segfault in scm_gc_mark?  
> 
> Well, it's not supposed to segfault :) Usually, this would be caused
> by a not fully initialized object (or an object that hasn't been
> correctly freed) being found by the gc. I can't remember if there was
> any glaring gc problem in 1.3 (except for roots not being fully
> initialized, but this shouldn't be a problem unless you're gcing very
> early). 

    I've updated to the CVS version (last night), and compiled with
debugging turned on.  Now it recognizes the whole stack, which is helpful. 
    What kinds of objects are you referring to?  I can't see anything in
my code that isn't properly initialized, at least in terms of what I've
malloc'ed (which is not much - most of the mallocing is done while loading
the binary and symbol/relocation tables).  I don't use any smobs - just
gh_cons, gh_symbol2scm (which isn't really a heap allocation anyway), and
a few C->scheme value converters.  

Lynn