[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: |
Mon, 20 May 2019 14:01:33 +0200 |
User-agent: |
NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) |
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 01:57:29PM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
> > 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.
>
> And I think that is a situation where assuming a specific type is ok,
> or at least not dangerous. An overflow is less likely (especially on 64
> bit machines) and a weird result may be easier to track down.
Agreed; when you enable fixnum mode, you're explicitly telling the
compiler that you don't care about any of that stuff, you just want
SPEED.
That said, I think the patch as it stands is fine to apply. We can
focus on fixing these other issues later (maybe in 5.2?), because
it sounds like a much bigger undertaking to change how specialization
in the scrutinizer works. AFAIK we want to get 5.1 out soonish so we
have a version that has chicken-install with cond-expand.
Note that Wasamasa pointed out on IRC that we still need to add -feature
to chicken-install, which ties in nicely with cond-expand (see
https://bugs.call-cc.org/ticket/1617)
Cheers,
Peter
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Mostly fix #1604, (continued)
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Mostly fix #1604, felix . winkelmann, 2019/05/19
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Mostly fix #1604, felix . winkelmann, 2019/05/20