Felix scripsit:
> By adding the "inline" declaration, you are effectively disabling
> this size test, telling the compiler: "Inline this! Always! Now
> go and do what I command!"
That's ... just wrong. An inline declaration should be a SHOULD,
not a MUST. In particular, the compiler should at
From: Andrei Barbu
Subject: [Chicken-hackers] inliner bug
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:09:34 -0400
> Hi,
Hello!
>
> The chicken inliner runs for a long time before failing with exit code
> 11 on the following code:
>
> (declare (inline test))
>
> (define (go a) (a 1))
> (define (test x) (go (la
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 01:33:50PM +0100, Christian Kellermann wrote:
> * Jörg F. Wittenberger [130309 12:26]:
> > I'm afraid I have no idea how I could boil this down to a reproducible
> > case.
> >
> > I've seen it once so far in a logfile of a process, which xreates
> > approximately 200 t
Hi,
The chicken inliner runs for a long time before failing with exit code
11 on the following code:
(declare (inline test))
(define (go a) (a 1))
(define (test x) (go (lambda (x) (x) (test x
Compile with:
csc -inline a.scm -emit-inline-file a.inline
This is a simplified version of a bug
Hi guys,
Peter Bex writes:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 06:48:44PM +0100, Florian Zumbiehl wrote:
> Thanks for this (and the other) patch! Here's a signed-off version,
> which other team members may push. I also nominate this patch for
> inclusion in the stability branch.
thanks a lot, signed of
