Re: [Chicken-hackers] inliner bug

[John Cowan]

Felix scripsit:

> By adding the "inline" declaration, you are effectively disabling
> this size test, telling the compiler:   "Inline this! Always! Now
> go and do what I command!"

That's ... just wrong.  An inline declaration should be a SHOULD,
not a MUST.  In particular, the compiler should at a minimum detect
that it is recursively inlining and stop.  A notinline declaration,
on the other hand, must be a MUST.  This is what Common Lisp says:
the compiler can always ignore an inline declaration, but a notinline
declaration is the only one (apart from a special-variable declaration,
which affects semantics) that MUST NOT be ignored.

> - disable the declaration after the current optimization pass, once
>   a procedure has been inlined at all call-sites in the program (this
>   may miss some call-sites in nested calls, but is better than what
>   happens now, with the compiler running out of memory and all that...)

That sounds reasonable.

-- 
Almost all theorems are true,                   John Cowan <address@hidden>
but almost all proofs have bugs.                http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Paul Pedersen