On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 06:28:11PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> Now, fp+ is only inlineable if the scrutinizer can prove that it's adding
> flonums, otherwise it falls back to a CPS call. I'm sure we can change
> that relatively easily by making it into an inline function that uses
> check_flonum or
> 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
Hi guys,
I came across this post[1] and could not resist writing something like it
in CHICKEN:
(import srfi-4 (chicken fixnum) (chicken flonum))
(let* ((size (* 3200))
(v (make-f64vector size)))
(time
(do ((i 0 (fx+ i 1))
(sum 0.0 (fp+ sum (f64vector-ref v i
