On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 03:06:36PM -0700, Derrell Piper wrote: > > >Thanks for reporting that. It's probably the same case as > >http://bugs.call-cc.org/ticket/917 > > Well, no. The clang warnings are not the problem. I think it's this > scrutinizer test that's failing: > > --- scrutiny.expected 2012-08-30 22:00:02.000000000 -0700 > +++ scrutiny.out 2012-09-09 15:05:22.000000000 -0700 > @@ -97,3 +97,17 @@ > (scrutiny-tests.scm:136) in procedure call to `+', expected argument #2 of > type `number', but was given an argument of type `symbol' > > Warning: redefinition of standard binding: car > \ No newline at end of file
That's just the "context" leading up to the actual diff, which are the lines preceded by the + signs. The scrutiny tests are actually testing that there's a warning shown when incorrect types are being used, so it's correct that the warning is there. This may be a little confusing, I know. Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
