Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] dynamic trace buffer resizing

[Peter Bex]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 03:10:59PM -0500, Jim Ursetto wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Peter Bex <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> Looks useful.  Could it perhaps be more useful to make the argument
> >> to C_resize_trace_buffer a regular size_t instead of a Scheme fixnum?
> >> That might make it slightly more usable from an embedded situation.
> 
> Sure -- but C_trace_buffer_size is an int.  That's why I used int ;)  I could 
> certainly fix that at the source, shall I?

That would be great.

> > Also, why is a maximum size necessary, and why is it so small?
> 
> It's not.  But there's a minimum size, so I figured naturally there should be 
> a maximum size, if only to eliminate accidentally or maliciously resizing the 
> trace buffer to an arbitrary extent.  There are also max caps on some other 
> resources.  Since it's a ring buffer, I suppose there are no *performance* 
> problems with a trace buffer of large size, just potentially memory usage.  
> The default is also arbitrary.  I could either eliminate the limit or raise 
> the default, your call.

The other limits annoy me equally ;)  So I guess it's probably enough to
have a minimum, or even rip that out as well (minimum of 0 = no history),
but I'm afraid that'd be more difficult.

> Actually, I just realized the arg isn't checked to be a fixnum.  I'll change 
> that when I incorporate any suggestions.

Ah, well spotted!

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://www.more-magic.net