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

[Peter Bex]

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