Search
Saturday, 16th of June 2018, 21:18:05 UTC
22:01:11
karlosz
is it legal to compile in the fdefinitions of any symbol in the COMMON-LISP package?
22:02:06
Bike
i'm not sure what you mean by "compile in the fdefinitions"
22:02:13
Bike
the user isn't allowed to redefine standard functions
22:05:12
karlosz
like, normally with (f x y) you'd emit code that first looks up the symbol function
22:05:35
karlosz
but by compiling it in i mean just having it directly call the fdefinition
22:05:43
karlosz
without the indirection
22:05:46
karlosz
i guess it is legal then
22:05:53
Bike
that's fine for standard functions, yeah.
22:05:59
Bike
and for functions in the file being compiled.
22:06:19
karlosz
what do you mean functions in the file being compiled?
22:06:25
karlosz
those can always be redefined, right?
22:06:40
Bike
no, it's not allowed. technically.
22:06:43
Bike
i mean, it's nice to support though.
22:07:07
specbot
Semantic Constraints: http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/03_bbc.htm
22:08:12
karlosz
oh, i see. strange, i never encountered that behavior in any lisp implementation
22:08:32
Bike
yeah, cos it'll lead to nastiness
22:09:00
karlosz
so basically its nonconforming behavior that every implementation does?
22:09:16
Bike
nonconforming behavior that every implementation allows.
22:09:36
Bike
in like, sbcl, if you compile a function, sbcl will derive the type and use that in other functions in the file, i think.
22:10:38
karlosz
er, it doesnt unless you have sb-ext:*derive-function-types* set to t i think
22:10:42
karlosz
but yeah i get your point
2:56:17
drmeister
I lost backtraces in jupyter lab in the new docker image because I used the quicklisp version and not our local-project implementation ... rectifying...
3:41:29
beach
Good morning everyone!
4:35:21
drmeister
Bike: Are you still online?
4:35:43
drmeister
Where were things when you finished on Friday with inlining?
4:36:02
Bike
that one form in asdf was failing.
4:36:02
drmeister
You commented out inline.lisp and you could build cclasp - but asdf had a problem.
4:36:12
drmeister
Did you nail down which form it was?
4:36:30
Bike
why, did you hit something?
4:36:46
drmeister
No - I wanted to explain to Martin where we were with that stuff.
4:36:57
drmeister
He's arriving tomorrow.
4:37:46
Bike
i don't really have a concept for what the problem could be. it's pretty rare to be able to build the whole of clasp and then hit a problem just with asdf
4:40:31
drmeister
It's happened to me several times. I have often built clasp and then failed when building or running one of those. Not for the reason you are seeing.
4:40:51
drmeister
But they stress the compiler in different ways than clasp source does.
4:41:04
Bike
probably mostly because asdf does everything in eval whens
4:42:00
drmeister
Well, we won't know until you narrow it down to the bad form.
4:42:49
drmeister
I'm worried that it is the inlining criterion. This inlines local functions - could it be a recursive labels function?
4:43:05
Bike
i already hit and fixed a problem where recursive functions would kill it.
4:44:04
drmeister
Ok - just speculating.
4:44:32
Bike
maybe a mutually recursive function would hit it... who knows
4:45:11
drmeister
That sounds tricky to detect.
4:49:47
Bike
it's probably not bad, i'm just not sure if the way i wrote it would detect it
8:22:41
beach
Are you still in the EU?
8:29:30
heisig
beach: Yes, I am still in Germany. I will leave tomorrow morning.
8:32:37
heisig
Thank you! It is a direct flight, so everything should work smoothly.
Sunday, 17th of June 2018, 9:18:05 UTC