Re: plugged a memleak

[Andy Wingo]

On Wed 21 Mar 2012 22:02, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

>> See c05805a4ea764dec5a0559edefcdfb9761191d07 in stable-2.0 for the
>> gnarly details.  The summary is that applicable smobs were being leaked,
>> because they were referenced in the values of weak-key tables.
>
> I was wondering whether removing ‘smob-call’ would break binary
> compatibility, but presumably that instruction could not possibly end up
> in user bytecode on disk, right?

Presumably not.  It is documented, though.  We can remove it, but its
continued presence doesn't cost us anything.  I'm OK with either option
:)

Cheers,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/