These seem correct to me. What were you expecting (and why?). Robby
On Saturday, April 19, 2014, Gustavo Massaccesi <gust...@oma.org.ar> wrote: > I found another problem with the optimizer and the new undefined behavior. > > (letrec ([x (if #t 8 x)]) x) ;==>8 > > I also consider this correct in a strange sense :). > > Gustavo > > > Welcome to Racket v6.0.1.4. > > (letrec ([x x]) x) > x: undefined; > cannot use before initialization > context...: > C:\Program Files\Racket-6.0.1.4\collects\racket\private\misc.rkt:87:7 > > (letrec ([x 5]) x) > 5 > > (letrec ([x (if #t 8 x)]) x) > 8 > > (letrec ([x (if #f 8 x)]) x) > x: undefined; > cannot use before initialization > context...: > C:\Program Files\Racket-6.0.1.4\collects\racket\private\misc.rkt:87:7 > > > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Matthias Felleisen > <matth...@ccs.neu.edu <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > Ah, too bad: > > > >> pkgs/racket-pkgs/racket-test/tests/racket/optimize.rktl > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> --- OLD/pkgs/racket-pkgs/racket-test/tests/racket/optimize.rktl > >> +++ NEW/pkgs/racket-pkgs/racket-test/tests/racket/optimize.rktl > >> @@ -3416,5 +3416,16 @@ > >> (read (open-input-bytes (get-output-bytes o)))))) > >> > >> ;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > >> +;; Check that an unsufe opertion's argument is > >> +;; not "optimized" away if it's a use of > >> +;; a variable before definition: > >> + > >> +(err/rt-test (let () > >> + (unsafe-fx+ x 1) > >> + (define x 3) > >> + x) > >> + exn:fail:contract:variable?) > >> + > >> +;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > > > > > > :-) > > > > On Apr 16, 2014, at 9:02 AM, Matthias Felleisen > > <matth...@ccs.neu.edu<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > >> > >> On Apr 15, 2014, at 9:29 PM, Asumu Takikawa > >> <as...@ccs.neu.edu<javascript:;>> > wrote: > >> > >>> On 2014-04-15 18:13:31 -0400, claire alvis wrote: > >>>> The push below includes changes to letrec expressions, internal > >>>> definitions, units, classes, and certain ill-formed shared > expressions so > >>>> that they no longer leak the `undefined' value. > >>> > >>> This is great! (especially happy that TR, even with classes, doesn't > >>> have to worry about #<undefined> anymore) > >>> > >>> BTW, I found this weird behavior: > >>> > >>> Welcome to Racket v6.0.1.3. > >>> -> (require racket/unsafe/ops) > >>> -> (let () (+ x 3) (define x 3) 5) > >>> ; x: variable used before its definition [,bt for context] > >>> -> (let () (unsafe-fx+ x 3) (define x 3) 5) > >>> 5 > >> > >> > >> I consider this correct in a strange sense. > >> > >> Interestingly enough, > >> > >>> (let () (displayln (unsafe-fx+ x 3)) (define x 3) 5) > >> x: variable used before its definition > >> context...: > >> /Users/matthias/plt/racket/collects/racket/private/misc.rkt:87:7 > >> > >> which is good too. I don't know how Claire and Matthew did this, > >> but it's good :-) > >> _________________________ > >> Racket Developers list: > >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > > > > _________________________ > > Racket Developers list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
