felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com writes:
>> Hi folks, >> >> I've just pushed most of these patches, with signoffs, to a branch >> called "scrutiny-message-formatting", and I think we should merge it. > > Thanks for doing this, I've ran the tests and so far things look good. > > I'm a bit concerned about the verbosity of the warnings. For generated > code or for macro expansions, cases like > > (if #f ...) > > or > > (let ((a '(x . y))) > (if (pair? a) ...)) > > will generate lots of output that only applies to trivially optimizable > cases. I'm fine with merging the patches but perhaps we should > distinguish between true errors (that can't possibly work) and > those warnings that apply to valid code but indicate redundancies. > Hi Felix, I totally agree about these two cases. I'd vote for hiding these messages altogether. Even if you're compiling with -verbose. Maybe just show statistics for known predicate calls with statically known results. There's already a statistic for dropped branches. And I agree that the scrutinizer should only show warnings about expressions it knows for sure are wrong. _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
