On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 09:27:54PM +0200, Tomas Volf wrote: > <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 12:50:57AM +0300, var-vniiaes--- via Bug reports > > for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> Execution of (set-car! '(0) 1) *in compiled code* leads to segfault: > > > > First of all: you shouldn't be doing that :) > > > > You are mutating a constant. I don't know what the Scheme specification says > > to it (if at all). > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > As noted in section 3.4, it is an error to attempt to alter > a constant (i.e. the value of a literal expression) using a > mutation procedure like set-car! or string-set! > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > > The other question is whether Guile should/could catch that and signal an > > error instead. > > I believe it should not.
This is ambiguous, but from the context below I think you mean Guile should catch it. I agree :-) > Memory-safe languages (and, Guile is supposed > to be one) should never segfault but instead terminate with a sensible > error. I realize that 1.3.2 allows to "fail catastrophically", which > segfault probably qualifies as, but I believe we should do better. Definitely -- the question is whether Guile wants to rely on the OS/runtime to catch an out-of-bounds access (or more probably here an access to a region marked read-onls) or catch it itself. Cheers -- tomás
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
