Re: Concurrency has landed

[Daniel Colascione]

On Sat, Dec 10 2016, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> At the time, this conclusion made perfect sense to me.  However, in
>> hindsight, I can no longer convince myself the removal was justified.
>> So if you find that the byte stack can still be removed without
>> breaking the concurrency feature, feel free to do so
>
> I'll look into it at some point if I find the time.
>
> If memory serves I removed the byte stack not only for performance
> reasons, but also because the byte stack implementation relies on
> using pointers to freed storage, which violates the C

How?