On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 21:44:36 +0200
Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
> This means AREF is always open-coded unless DEBUG >= 2. But open-coding only
> means that AREF is translated into ROW-MAJOR-AREF and this one is only
> inlined when safety settings are low and the type of the array is known in
> a
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Matthew Mondor wrote:
> Yes, I think that I now understand this. It also appears that in some
> particular cases AREF access will be inlined at safety=0, which is a
> very nice thing too.
>
AREF is inlined in many cases, including multidimensional access, but the
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 09:59:17 +0200
Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
> > In SBCL, AREF, SVREF, CHAR, SCHAR will signal a uniform condition of
> > type SB-INT:INVALID-ARRAY-INDEX-ERROR:
> >
>
> Which version is this? I get this one with the latest update from Fink
>
> (handler-case (let ((a (make-a
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Matthew Mondor wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When looking at the HyperSpec on those functions, it seems undefined
> what happens when a supplied index is not a "valid array index", thus,
> from 0 below the array size. The exception is ELT, which should signal
> a condition
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:26:26 -0400
Matthew Mondor wrote:
> Attached is the test CL code and the resulting C code with ECL.
> So for the SVREF case indeed 0-1 safety levels allow better
> optimization, and ecl_aref1() is used at higher levels.
When I started looking at the array implementation, i
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:42:04 -0400
Matthew Mondor wrote:
> When I can, I'll then redo these tests on both SBCL and ECL using
> various safety levels to ensure that at level three boundary checks
> always be performed, and to list where at level 0 optimization could be
> improved.
Attached is the
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:07:39 +0100
"Pascal J. Bourguignon" wrote:
> And similarly, the C standard doesn't specify either what happens when
> you reference a slot in a vector beyond (or before) the bounds of the
> vector (so called 'array' in C).
>
> It just happens that customers of C compilers
Matthew Mondor
writes:
> Hello,
>
> When looking at the HyperSpec on those functions, it seems undefined
> what happens when a supplied index is not a "valid array index", thus,
> from 0 below the array size. The exception is ELT, which should signal
> a condition of type TYPE-ERROR.
>
> In prac
Hello,
When looking at the HyperSpec on those functions, it seems undefined
what happens when a supplied index is not a "valid array index", thus,
from 0 below the array size. The exception is ELT, which should signal
a condition of type TYPE-ERROR.
In practice however, it seems that implementat
