Thank you Felix and Mario, I've applied this.
All the best,
Evan
___
Chicken-hackers mailing list
Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
Hi!
Indeed, all you say is right. It needed a full recompile with the HEAD
to trigger this error by generating a use of the unboxed fXX accessors
in the SRFI-4 runtime system.
See attached patch, the reason is quite clear: the unboxed accessors
assumed unboxed fixnum index arguments.
felix
From
Sorry, I sent an empty mail. I'm trying to reproduce this.
felix
___
Chicken-hackers mailing list
Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
> Hi Felix,
>
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 08:42:40 +0100 felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
>
> >> No problem. Unfortunately, now "make check" breaks:
> >>
> >> Error: assertion failed: (eqv? (f32vector-ref old 6) (f32vector-ref new 0))
> >
> > Ouch. I'm running make check with something based on the
Hi Felix,
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 08:42:40 +0100 felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
>> No problem. Unfortunately, now "make check" breaks:
>>
>> Error: assertion failed: (eqv? (f32vector-ref old 6) (f32vector-ref new 0))
>
> Ouch. I'm running make check with something based on the current
> HEAD al
>
> No problem. Unfortunately, now "make check" breaks:
>
> Error: assertion failed: (eqv? (f32vector-ref old 6) (f32vector-ref new 0))
>
Ouch. I'm running make check with something based on the current
HEAD all the time, on what platform is this? Is the error consistently
appearing? If you co
Hi,
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:42:36 +0100 felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 07:25:33PM +0100, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
>> > It looks like this patch (79cf7427, master) has broken "make
>> > bootstrap". Log attached (using CHICKEN 5.0.0 as CHICKEN).
>>
>> Right you
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 07:25:33PM +0100, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
> > It looks like this patch (79cf7427, master) has broken "make
> > bootstrap". Log attached (using CHICKEN 5.0.0 as CHICKEN).
>
> Right you are. The reason is that lfa2 is trying to unbox the arguments
> to {f32,f64}_vec
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 07:25:33PM +0100, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
> It looks like this patch (79cf7427, master) has broken "make
> bootstrap". Log attached (using CHICKEN 5.0.0 as CHICKEN).
Right you are. The reason is that lfa2 is trying to unbox the arguments
to {f32,f64}_vector_ref, whi
Hi,
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 12:32:19 +0100 felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
> Thanks, your suggestions seem to be correct, I applied the patch and removed
> the last call to sub-boxed!. I also added a (very simple) test.
>
>> - Finally: there are still quite some remnants of the old boxing/unboxing
Thanks, your suggestions seem to be correct, I applied the patch and removed
the last call to sub-boxed!. I also added a (very simple) test.
> - Finally: there are still quite some remnants of the old boxing/unboxing
>code around to mark variables as 'boxed, and there's still ##core#box
>a
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:46:44AM +0100, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
> This patch adds an additional optimization pass to the "lfa2"
> compiler stage, which attempts to remove unnecessary
> boxing and unboxing of floating point numbers. Specifically,
> calls to floating point inline operati
This patch adds an additional optimization pass to the "lfa2"
compiler stage, which attempts to remove unnecessary
boxing and unboxing of floating point numbers. Specifically,
calls to floating point inline operations that have a variant that
accepts unboxed arguments are replaced with a faster ver
13 matches
Mail list logo
