[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] numbers integration
From: |
Felix Winkelmann |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] numbers integration |
Date: |
Sun, 15 Feb 2015 23:49:54 +0100 (CET) |
> The scrutinizer doesn't seem to see that j is an integer, even though
> "lp" is not escaping, and is only invoked in one place, with an integer.
> I would have expected it to at least figure out it is a "number", but
> that doesn't seem to be the case. Of course, it would be even better if
> it could be made to understand it can only be a fixnum, but that would
> require tricky range analysis, whereas this immediate problem requires
> only simple types as they are available right now.
Scrutiny doesn't work across procedure-calls, it is a purely local
analysis.
felix
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] numbers integration, (continued)
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] numbers integration, Alex Shinn, 2015/02/09
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] numbers integration, Peter Bex, 2015/02/09
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] numbers integration, Alaric Snell-Pym, 2015/02/11
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] numbers integration, Felix Winkelmann, 2015/02/11
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] numbers integration, Jörg F. Wittenberger, 2015/02/11
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] numbers integration, Peter Bex, 2015/02/11
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] numbers integration, Peter Bex, 2015/02/12
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] numbers integration, Alex Shinn, 2015/02/12
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] numbers integration, Felix Winkelmann, 2015/02/13
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] numbers integration, Peter Bex, 2015/02/15
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] numbers integration,
Felix Winkelmann <=