bug#15602: bug#19235: make-fresh-user-module procedure leaks memory

[Ludovic Courtès]

Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:

> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> In many ways I think Ludovic was right in #15602 -- we should allow
>> excursions to isolate changes to the module tree.  Sometimes you want an
>> excursion to never add a module to the tree.  Sometimes you do, but
>> maybe all in one go and with a mutex, to avoid races -- like, you could
>> load a file or evaluate some code in a private fork of the module tree,
>> but then commit it to the main tree afterwards.  Is that a sensible
>> thing?
>
> Yes, I agree.  In fact, I'd been thinking of something along those lines
> to enable thread-safe module loading.  More specifically, I was thinking
> that there should be a fluid variable that contains some additional
> modules that are not yet committed to the global module tree.
>
> Briefly, when a module is auto-loaded by a thread, the new module would
> initially be visible only to that thread, and also to any threads
> spawned by that thread during the auto-load.  Any attempts to access the
> module from other threads would block until the module is either fully
> loaded.

That sounds like a nice idea.

In the current state of things, perhaps this behavior could be emulated
by running ‘compile-file’ in a module excursion, and passing it a root
module that’s a copy of ‘the-root-module’, something like that (though
that would probably perform badly.)

> One potential issue that has been troubling me is that in Guile's model,
> there's no guarantee that a module will _ever_ finish loading.

I think the fact that we evaluate all the top-level forms is
problematic.  The R6RS phases were a great idea.  :-)

> The main program itself could simply run from the auto-load.  That's
> why I think it's important to propagate permission to threads created
> during the auto-load, but maybe there will still be problems.

I’m not sure what you mean by “propagate permission”?

Ludo’.