- Gambit-list - mailman.iro.umontreal.ca

Re: [gambit-list] compiler bug?
by Marc Feeley 03 Sep '07

03 Sep '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 25-Sep-06, at 3:48 PM, Sven.Hartrumpf(a)FernUni-Hagen.de wrote: > Hello Marc. > > I have a large program which behaves a little different > with gsc than any other Scheme I know of (bigloo, chicken, gauche): > Here is the problematic region: > > (let* ((orth (and (pair? word-info) > ;(not (eq? (caar word-info) 'words)) > (fs-value (car word-info) '(orth)))) > (orth-l (if orth (string-length orth) 0)) > (left-hyphen (and (> orth-l 2) > (char=? (string-ref orth 0) # > \-))) ; examples: \quw{Steuergesetzgebung und -verwaltung}, \quw > {auspringen und -setzen} > (right-hyphen (and (> orth-l 1) > (char=? (string-ref orth (- orth- > l 1)) #\-))) > (step (if left-hyphen > (and (not right-hyphen) > -1) > (and right-hyphen > 1)))) > > left-hyphen and right-hyphen are evaluated to #f for some binding - > this > is as expected. But step is bound to 1 which seems wrong to me. > Minimizing the problem might be hard for me, so I hope that you can > see > the problem already :-) > > Ciao > Sven Sven, you have just uncovered a nasty bug in the compiler. In beta 18 the transformation for the "and" form is too aggressive in the case where the second argument is a constant. As far as I can tell this bug was introduced just before beta 18 was released. Surprisingly in the 70Kloc in the Gambit runtime system and compiler this case does not occur. I have now fixed the bug and will release beta 19 shortly because this is a serious bug. Thanks! Marc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFGEqS//V9Zc2T/v4RAqTeAJ9asp7elGoK7yqa6MzmLFTRj6K8UwCfc3d4 5haROCNvlgMs1NREyZCgYIw= =bvLI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

how to make write display (quote 1 2 3) instead of '(1 2 3)
by naruto canada 02 Sep '07

02 Sep '07

hi how to make write display (quote 1 2 3) instead of '(1 2 3)

2 2

redefining symbols with 'load'?
by James Long 02 Sep '07

02 Sep '07

I want to make sure I understand how 'load' works in Gambit. I have basic build system using a slightly modified version Snow up and running, and I'm making a few assertions that I want to make sure are true. In Gambit, a 'load' and 'include' are obviously quite different because it's using machine-compiled code for compiled objects, not bytecode. I have heard (I have not tested this yet, although I will soon) that it's quite expensive to call code across module boundaries, which makes reasonable sense because it cannot simply use the 'goto'-style jump. So, for any high-performance application, you want to inline code when compiling if you don't need a shared library. Now, I have my system separated into a few shared libraries (.o1 files), but there are cases when I want to inline code that is common between them. For example, I have a utilities package which is called quite often in all of the modules, and it makes sense to include this file rather than load it (for performance). However, doing so would include this file in all modules, so when the modules are loaded together, the same symbols are redefined. If code is of the form (load "lib") (include "util.scm") (call-utility-function 'with 'some 'params) and util.scm is also included in the "lib" library, is it same to assume that when the above code is compiled in Gambit that call-utility-function with resolve to the local version with a 'goto'-style jump? I don't see how it wouldn't since it has no idea about lib's version of call-utility-function until run-time, unless it does some sort of check at runtime? I know you can't redefine symbols in Gambit at compile-time, so I'm assuming it does a sort of static binding. I'll be the first to admit that this may be a major case of pre-optimization. so slap me if I shouldn't be worrying about this as much.

1 1

90-min-scc.scm question
by naruto canada 31 Aoû '07

31 Aoû '07

hi I've just finished reading the pdf file "The 90 Minute Scheme to C compiler". I look at the source code, and got stopped by the first line of code: (define-type ast extender: define-type-of-ast subx) ; the asts of the sub-expressions What is define-type?

2 1

Non-REPL Debugging in Gambit
by François Magnan 29 Aoû '07

29 Aoû '07

Hi, Is there an easy way to access the debugging functions of the Gambit REPL in a programmatic way? I would like to call (for example) a function that would give me the equivalent of ",b" and ",e" inside my exception-catcher. Thank you, Francois Magnan P.S.: I searched the source code and I found commands like ##cmd-e but I don't know I to use them.

5 6

Re: [gambit-list] Gambit-C v4.0.0 released
by Guillaume Cartier 28 Aoû '07

28 Aoû '07

On 25-Aug-07, at 4:26 PM, Logiciel Gambit wrote: > Gambit-C v4.0.0 is now available. > > The sources and prebuilt distributions can be obtained from > the Gambit web site by visiting one of the following links. > I am pretty sure I speak for everyone on this list by saying: Congratulations Marc and thank you for Gambit 4.0! Guillaume

3 2

[ANN] Gambit-C v4.0.0 released
by gambit＠iro.umontreal.ca 26 Aoû '07

26 Aoû '07

Gambit-C v4.0.0 is now available. The sources and prebuilt distributions can be obtained from the Gambit web site by visiting one of the following links. sources: http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~gambit/download/gambit/v4.0/source/gambc-v4_0_… prebuilt: http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~gambit/download/gambit/v4.0/prebuilt/gambc-v4_… http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~gambit/download/gambit/v4.0/prebuilt/gambc-v4_… http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~gambit/download/gambit/v4.0/prebuilt/gambc-v4_… http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~gambit/download/gambit/v4.0/prebuilt/gambc-v4_… http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~gambit/download/gambit/v4.0/prebuilt/gambc-v4_…

2 1

anyone get schelog working with gambit-c?
by naruto canada 24 Aoû '07

24 Aoû '07

hi anyone get schelog working with gambit-c? I've tried both schelog.scm and gambit-schelog.scm, both versions get me: *** ERROR -- Ill-formed expression if anyone has managed to get it working please let me know. thanks. I will see if I can get in touch with the author.

5 8

Schelog and inlining eqv?
by Bradley Lucier 22 Aoû '07

22 Aoû '07

Marc: Discussing schelog again brought to mind my suggestion about how the compiler should inline eqv?: https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/pipermail/gambit-list/2006-October/ 000885.html Some results on the naive reverse% benchmark are at https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/pipermail/gambit-list/2006-October/ 000890.html Even on the "houses" puzzle, which spends a lot of time in the "occurs" check, the change in how to compile eqv? makes a big difference with the declarations: > (declare (standard-bindings) (extended-bindings) (block)) > (declare (not safe)) > (declare (inlining-limit 1000)) New eqv?: > [brad:~/Desktop/schelog/examples] lucier% gsc -:m100000 > Gambit Version 4.0 beta 23 > > > (load "../gambit-unix-version-of-schelog") > "/Users/lucier/Desktop/schelog/examples/../gambit-unix-version-of- > schelog.o2" > > (load "houses") > "/Users/lucier/Desktop/schelog/examples/houses.o1" > > (load "puzzle") > "/Users/lucier/Desktop/schelog/examples/puzzle.o1" > > (time (solve-puzzle %houses)) > (time (solve-puzzle %houses)) > 395 ms real time > 366 ms cpu time (268 user, 98 system) > no collections > 66951840 bytes allocated > no minor faults > no major faults > ((solution= ((japan owns the zebra) (norway drinks water)))) > > > *** EOF again to exit Old eqv?: > [brad:~/Desktop/schelog/examples] lucier% gsc -:m100000 > Gambit Version 4.0 beta 23 > > > (load "../gambit-unix-version-of-schelog.o1") > "/Users/lucier/Desktop/schelog/examples/../gambit-unix-version-of- > schelog.o1" > > (load "houses") > "/Users/lucier/Desktop/schelog/examples/houses.o1" > > (load "puzzle") > "/Users/lucier/Desktop/schelog/examples/puzzle.o1" > > (time (solve-puzzle %houses)) > (time (solve-puzzle %houses)) > 709 ms real time > 657 ms cpu time (551 user, 106 system) > no collections > 66952160 bytes allocated > no minor faults > no major faults > ((solution= ((japan owns the zebra) (norway drinks water)))) > > > *** EOF again to exit

1 0

does gambit-c have any strategy when one day those 80 cores cpus are available?
by naruto canada 21 Aoû '07

21 Aoû '07

hi does gambit-c have any strategy when one day those 80 cores cpus are available? maybe I am thinking about this too earlier. just find this page on register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/20/tilera_tile64_chip/

3 2