Hi Taylan,
taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> Adopting the behavior is more or less fine. If it can be done while
>> relying on the existing behavior, that is better than something ad-hoc
>> in a module.
In general, I agree with Andy's se
Hello Seamus,
seamus phenetols writes:
> Setting GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE in ~/.profile and in ~/.bash_profile
> doesn't seem to have any effect. I'm giving up on guile for now.
> Thank you very much for helping.
I'm sorry it hasn't worked for you! Let's see if we can find out why.
What exactly did
Stefan Israelsson Tampe writes:
> how would this slow down the code. just add the correction where you
> throw the exception which should be in a branch outside the hot path.
If you have a suggestion that's simpler than what I did in commits
011aec7e, 9448a078, and 1990aa91, and just as fast in t
how would this slow down the code. just add the correction where you throw
the exception which should be in a branch outside the hot path.
Den 14 okt 2018 10:19 AM skrev "Mark H Weaver" :
Zefram writes:
> Not really outright bugs, but these responses are less than awesome:
>
> $ guile -c '(writ
Zefram writes:
> With Guile 2.0.11:
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> (ash 123 (ash -1 63))
> $1 = 123
>
> Correct result would of course be zero. Problem only occurs for
> exactly this shift distance: one bit less produces the right answer.
Nice catch!
It's finally fixed in commit 1990aa916382d0afcebd
Zefram writes:
> Not really outright bugs, but these responses are less than awesome:
>
> $ guile -c '(write (logbit? (ash 1 100) 123))'
> ERROR: Value out of range 0 to 18446744073709551615:
> 1267650600228229401496703205376
> $ guile -c '(write (ash 0 (ash 1 100)))'
> ERROR: Value out of range
Stefan Israelsson Tampe writes:
> The code velow does not compile when the define-inlinable of id is active. If
> in stead
> id defined by define is used it all compiles just fine.
The problem was that, in some cases, the type inferrer would call 'ash'
with (- 1 (expt 2 64)) as the second argume
