From: Jörg F. Wittenberger
Subject: [Chicken-hackers] See you at CeBit !
Date: 04 Mar 2012 20:09:50 +0100
> Hi Chickeners,
>
> to those of you who will be at CeBit the next days:
> join us at our both at the security plaza hall 12!
>
> We'll show you a pure chicken network! ( askemos.org )
Yay
Hi!
I wonder if it is a good idea to test vector limits by allocating a
vector of #x100 elements.
cheers,
felix
___
Chicken-hackers mailing list
Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
From: Christian Kellermann
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Raise error on construction of too large
vectors/blobs
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:13:29 +0100
> * felix winkelmann [120304 12:09]:
>> From: Christian Kellermann
>> Subject: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Raise error on construction of
* felix winkelmann [120305 13:41]:
> Hi!
>
> I wonder if it is a good idea to test vector limits by allocating a
> vector of #x100 elements.
The rationale behind this is:
It should not allocate anything but raise an error. If it does it
will exhaust memory and that is also an error,
From: Christian Kellermann
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Raise error on construction of too large
vectors/blobs
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 13:47:32 +0100
> * felix winkelmann [120305 13:41]:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I wonder if it is a good idea to test vector limits by allocating a
>> vector of #x100
> The second patch is a bit more delicate and deserves some more
> explanation. When a program initially gets translated into a
> node tree, it is normalised to have all bodies transformed into
> let-statements, as well as the toplevel.
Signed off and pushed.
cheers,
felix
* felix winkelmann [120305 13:56]:
> > Does that make sense? I just want to make sure that the error is caught...
> > Maybe there is a better way?
>
> Ah, you check for an error. An oversight on my part. Well, you could try
> negative lengths and so on.
Good idea! This should also be caught...
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 02:00:31PM +0100, Felix wrote:
> > The second patch is a bit more delicate and deserves some more
> > explanation. When a program initially gets translated into a
> > node tree, it is normalised to have all bodies transformed into
> > let-statements, as well as the toplevel
* felix winkelmann [120305 13:56]:
> From: Christian Kellermann
> Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Raise error on construction of too
> large vectors/blobs
> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 13:47:32 +0100
>
> > * felix winkelmann [120305
> > 13:41]:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> I wonder if it is a good id
Hi,
Something changed in the core that makes ugarit and tuples break on
2012/03/04. They were not breaking the day before.
You can see the salmonella diff here:
http://tests.call-cc.org/master/linux/x86/2012/03/04/yesterday-diff/
The installation error messages for ugarit and tuples are here:
h
From: Mario Domenech Goulart
Subject: [Chicken-hackers] ugarit and tuples start breaking on 2012/03/03
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:42:27 -0500
> Hi,
>
> Something changed in the core that makes ugarit and tuples break on
> 2012/03/04. They were not breaking the day before.
>
> You can see the sa
11 matches
Mail list logo
