[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: crummy lisps

From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: crummy lisps
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 06:49:59 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050716

I've been writing tests that check if the implementation
signals errors in such cases, even if not required by ANSI.
See ansi-tests/beyond-ansi/.  This is still a work in progress.


Camm Maguire wrote:
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.


reply via email to

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