Thanks Peter. That helped. I'm not certain but I think it was where I had put hostinfo egg from chicken 4 into a subdir and was including it. There is a .h file in hostinfo and I didn't catch the error message. Presumably that somehow put the compiler into fixnum mode. Now on to the next porting challenge :)
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:20 PM Peter Bex <pe...@more-magic.net> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 09:37:32PM -0700, Matt Welland wrote: > > This one I sort of understand but it does seem annoying: > > > > Warning: coerced inexact literal number `9e+99' to fixnum > > > 8999999999999999948859130765266355329578537025198862586562510896759102769772101980841694466750283776 > > I don't get this, unless I use -fixnum-arithmetic. The message > is a bit misleading because that number is (obviously) not a fixnum. > However, if I compile it and I get that warning, it errors out with > > Error: [internal compiler error] bad immediate (prepare) > > This makes sense because that's not a fixnum. Maybe something we > could "fix" by making the number overflow, or something. > > > but the following I don't understand: > > > > This line: > > (define megatest-version 1.6584) > > > > generates this warning: > > Warning: literal is out of range - will be truncated to integer: 1.6584 > > I don't get that unless I compile with -fixnum-arithmetic. > > > But a small test program works fine: > > > > $ cat testit.scm > > (module testit > > * > > (import scheme) > > (define abc 1.2345) > > ) > > > > (import testit) > > (print (/ abc 2)) > > $ csc testit.scm > > $ ./testit > > 0.61725 > > If I compile that as "csc -fixnum-arithmetic testit.scm" I get the > same warning and it prints zero. If I compile it without flags, > I get the expected output, like you. > > Cheers, > Peter > -- -- Complexity is your enemy. Any fool can make something complicated. It is hard to keep things simple. - Richard Branson.
