[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gcl-devel] Re: crummy lisps

From: Camm Maguire
Subject: [Gcl-devel] Re: crummy lisps
Date: 09 Aug 2005 00:58:36 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2

Greetings!  This is my understanding too, and general goal that the
compiler should follow.  Whether we achieve this is of course another
matter entirely, especially as most everyone runs at safety 0 leaving
safety 3 with little feedback.

Take care,

Robert Boyer <address@hidden> writes:

> I should add the following.
> I think it is generally accepted rule of thumb in the Common Lisp community
> that if you compile and execute with SAFETY = 3, then your Lisp job will not
> die some horrible death (e.g., with a segmentation violation) because someone
> did an RPLACA or a SETF-AREF on some garbage, and thereby randomly zapped
> memory.  Another way of thinking about this is that at SAFETY = 3, life is
> almost as nice as it always was on a Lisp machine.
> I do not think that the ANSI standard in any way requires this "rule of
> thumb".  Maybe it should.  Maybe the authors thought it did.  But I can't
> find it in writing and would happy if you told me where to look.
> Bob

Camm Maguire                                            address@hidden
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]