[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gcl-devel] New random tester failures
From: |
Camm Maguire |
Subject: |
Re: [Gcl-devel] New random tester failures |
Date: |
27 Nov 2004 22:27:49 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 |
Thanks again! As you can tell, I'm trying to save on the
pre-evaluations if possible. Simplest would be to pull all args into
a let*, but ...
I think this is fixed now, but would always appreciate your comment.
This version pre-evaluates in a let* all a) cons args whose car is not
'quote, and b) non-constant atom args which appear anywhere to the
right (at any nesting level). This should work, right?
Take care,
"Paul F. Dietz" <address@hidden> writes:
> Camm Maguire wrote:
> > Greetings, and thanks for the quick notice! I had introduced this
> > when speeding up certain binary operator function calls of more than
> > two arguments via compiler macros.
> > I think this should be fixed now. Please confirm, and review if time
> > permits. I am assuming I only need to ensure evaluation of arguments
> > which are of type cons and whose car is not 'quote.
>
> This has apparently introduced a new bug:
>
> Test MISC.449 failed
> Form: (FUNCALL (COMPILE NIL '(LAMBDA (A) (* 10 A (SETQ A 1000)))) 1)
> Expected value: 10000
> Actual value: 10000000.
>
> (this test has been committed.)
>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gcl-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcl-devel
>
>
>
--
Camm Maguire address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
- [Gcl-devel] New random tester failures, Paul F. Dietz, 2004/11/26
- Re: [Gcl-devel] New random tester failures, Camm Maguire, 2004/11/27
- Re: [Gcl-devel] New random tester failures, Paul F. Dietz, 2004/11/27
- Re: [Gcl-devel] New random tester failures,
Camm Maguire <=
- Re: [Gcl-devel] New random tester failures, Paul F. Dietz, 2004/11/27
- Re: [Gcl-devel] New random tester failures, Camm Maguire, 2004/11/28
- Re: [Gcl-devel] New random tester failures, Paul F. Dietz, 2004/11/28
- Re: [Gcl-devel] New random tester failures, Camm Maguire, 2004/11/28
- Re: [Gcl-devel] New random tester failures, Paul F. Dietz, 2004/11/28
- Re: [Gcl-devel] New random tester failures, Camm Maguire, 2004/11/29
- Message not available
- Re: [Gcl-devel] New random tester failures, Camm Maguire, 2004/11/29
- RE: [Gcl-devel] New random tester failures, Mike Thomas, 2004/11/29
- Re: [Gcl-devel] New random tester failures, Camm Maguire, 2004/11/29
- Re: [Gcl-devel] New random tester failures, Paul F. Dietz, 2004/11/29