Hi Manuel. Manuel wrote, 2022-11-03 11:50: > Hi Sven, > >> Hi. >> >> I am seeing new (spurious?) warnings for the current unstable version >> (x86_64 and x32-ABI): >> >> "bint" expected, "bignum" provided >> >> A minimal example: >> >> bugz11.scm: >> --- >> (module bugz11 >> (export >> (list-ref-check::obj l pos::bint)) >> (main main)) >> >> (define (list-ref-check l pos) >> (let iter () >> (if (pair? l) >> (cond ((= pos 0) >> (car l)) >> (else >> (set! l (cdr l)) >> (set! pos (- pos 1)) >> (iter))) >> #f))) >> >> (define (main args) >> (let ((val (list-ref-check args 1))) >> (display val) >> (newline) >> 0)) >> --- >> >> > bigloo -O3 -ldopt "-static" -o bugz11 bugz11.scm >> >> File "bugz11.scm", line 14, character 370: >> # (set! pos (- pos 1)) >> # ^ >> *** WARNING: iter >> Type error -- "bint" expected, "bignum" provided > Actually, I think this new behavior is correct. The previous Bigloo versions > were simply not able to detect that potential error. Let me explain. > > The "(- pos 1)" expression may overflow and then produce a bignum > value. This is incompatible the "bint" type assigned to pos. I think that to > get rid of the warning, you should use the "-fx" operator that will not > produce a bignum value. Does this make sense to you? Do you agree that > this new behavior is the one we should expect?
Yes, I see. Sven
