I was wondering the same thing just recently and couldn't find a way to
write a racket program that produced a scheme_closed_prim_type. I think it
is safe to just not optimize those and maybe even safe to not work on
those, possibly.
Robby
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016, Gustavo Massaccesi wrote:
I'm trying to add support in the JIT for primitive-result-arity and
procedure-result-arity. My idea is to copy the implementation of
procedure-arity-includes? and make some modifications.
In the JIT, procedure-arity-includes? only has a special case for
scheme_native_closure_type and scheme_prim_t
