> To make this code specialize two things are needed:
>
> 1. Infer more specific types for (recursive) functions.
>
> 2. Prove that a function is always called with correct arguments.
>
> If we can do this then we can effectively re-walk the function with the
> arguments assumed to be of the
Peter Bex writes:
[...]
>
> Of course this means several more intrinsics will have to be added as
> safe versions for each of the specific flonum operators. Thoughts?
Can't see a reason why not, except it's a lot of code to write.
>
> I also wonder why the scrutinizer can't detect that
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:42:33PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's a one-character patch that gives more complete information to any
> registered compiler-syntax hook.
Thanks, pushed.
Cheers,
Peter
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
Here's a one-character patch that gives more complete information to any
registered compiler-syntax hook.
Cheers,
Evan
>From 3c957e44ace9f3304a4dd6e450cf6959a3de7cbb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Evan Hanson
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:27:25 +1200
Subject: [PATCH] Pass full macro name to
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 03:06:07PM +0200, ko...@upyum.com wrote:
> > Peter Bex wrote:
> > > Here's a relatively straightforward patch, which fixes #1581 as we
> > > discussed at SaarCHICKEN.
> >
> > Please don’t apply this patch.
> >
> > The conclusion we arrived to, at SaarCHICKEN, was that
