[plt-scheme] 372: 3m does not check for VirtualAlloc failure

At Thu, 8 May 2008 07:43:47 -0400, "Eric Kidd" wrote:
> 1) How stable is 3.99? I've seen a few segfault reports on the mailing
> list, which would suggest that it might be too soon for us to consider
> upgrading.

I think v3.99 is at least as stable as v372.

Grepping for "seg" just in message titles over the last two months, I
find two messages. The bug that Tom hit last week is also in v372. The
one that Danny reported in March was specific to v3.99 (though the
memory-leak half of his problem was a carry-over from v372).


> 2) Assuming we have ~2000 lines of C++ code using the 372 3m API, and
> ~100,000 lines of Scheme code using the mzscheme language, what would
> be involved in upgrading to 3.99?

The C half should be easy, because little has changed in internally.
But see

  http://list.cs.brown.edu/pipermail/plt-scheme/2008-April/024322.html


For the Scheme half, the document that Eli mentioned contains a
"Porting Advice" section:

 http://docs.plt-scheme.org/release-notes/mzscheme/MzScheme_4.txt