I was going to suggest using the cond-expand approach.
Also, it might be interesting for the compiler to make the current declarations testable as cond-expand features. Giving something like:
(cond-expand ((declare (not safe)) …) ((declare (debug)) …) ((declare (optimize-dead-definitions)) …) (else …))
The implementation of this is complicated by the fact that the interpreter and compiler don’t manage declarations the same way.
Marc
On Nov 27, 2019, at 9:10 AM, Dimitris Vyzovitis vyzo@hackzen.org wrote:
Just a follow up:
It is possible to do it with a cond-expand, as the gerbil compiler can detect when it is compiling with (not safe). The contract check in the generated code would be at the function entry point and look like: (cond-expand (gerbil-runtime-checks ...) ;; do checks and raise exception if the contract is violated (else))
When the compiler detects that it is in a safe context (absence of a local or prelude (not safe) declaration), then it can emit a (define-cond-expand-feature|gerbil-runtime-checks|) for gsc, and compile in the contract checks.
This is a reasonably good solution, so there is no pressing need to add a construct to gambit that conditionally compiles based on declarations.
-- vyzo
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 8:39 PM Dimitris Vyzovitis vyzo@hackzen.org wrote: Is there a mechanism by which we can declare code to be eliminated when compiling with (declare (not safe))? I haven't been able to find anything, and it would be very nice to have something like (when-declare (safe) stuff ...), which would be eliminated in unsafe compilation. The context is that I want to add a contract system to Gerbil, but I don't want the runtime checks to persist when compiling with (not safe).
-- vyzo