megane <megan...@gmail.com> writes: > Peter Bex <pe...@more-magic.net> writes: > >> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 02:05:21PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: >>> You're right, good catch! That was an oversight on my part, I only >>> removed the captured check of the other variable. I hope this makes >>> things faster in more cases. I can make and test a new patch, but don't >>> know when I'll get around to it. Possibly in the weekend. >> >> I tried this, but I got a crash when compiling CHICKEN with itself after >> having built it with this patch. > > Do you mean you tried with the '(not captured)' check removed? > >> >> I'm not even sure why it's doing this. The offending procedure was >> append-map from mini-srfi-1, it's calling proc with the wrong number >> of arguments. > > There's this in the definition of append-map: > > (define (append-map proc lst1 . lsts) > ... > (append (proc x) r) > ^^^^ > Calling proc with 1 argument > > The error was: > > Error: mini-srfi-1.scm:72: proc: procedure `proc' called with wrong number of > arguments > rules.make:831: recipe for target 'chicken-ffi-syntax.c' failed > > In chicken-ffi-syntax.scm in the definition for let-syntax there's this: > > (append-map > (lambda (b a) > ^^^^ > This expects 2 arguments!!! > (if (pair? (cddr b)) > (list (cons a (cddr b))) > '() ) ) > bindings aliases)
Sorry, ignore the above.. I wasn't thinking about what append-map was supposed to do.. I'll take a closer look after some sleep. _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers