[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Mostly fix #1604

From: Peter Bex
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Mostly fix #1604
Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 09:31:45 +0200
User-agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:07:59AM +0300, megane wrote:
> address@hidden writes:
> [...]
> >
> > Shouldn't the types.db specialization for scheme#= be applied
> > here? Or can't it figure out the ffixnum types of the arguments?
> > Even though it is slightly dangerous, the scrutinizer _could_ assume
> > arguments to numerical primitives are fixnums in fixnum mode...
> That's right, the scrutinizer can't figure out the types. The type of n
> for the first scheme#= call is *. The call enforces the type to number.
> So the second scheme#= is called with (number fixnum). There's no
> specialization for that either.
> Wouldn't that kind of assuming lead to hard to debug bugs?

I think so too.

Besides, like I said in the other mail, then we'd still be calling
allocating functions because (+ fixnum fixnum) => (or fixnum bignum).
In fixnum mode, we'd want to use the overflowing unsafe fixnum ops.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]