From: Ray L. <ra...@ma...> - 2008-01-22 04:42:00
|
On Monday 21 January 2008 20:37, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > I think so. What I ran into was a case of cascading improvements. I > decided to add two "simple" things to the interpreter to increase > standard compliance: BigNums and string-streams. Both ran afoul of the > assumptions of the implementation. ok, that makes me feel better. > The two existing bits of code that I would inspect with aggressive > distrust are the implementation of PRINT and the top-level LOAD logic. > You already ran in to the latter case. heh! and my next question was going to be about OP_P0LIST :-) if i run aubrey jaffer's test.scm, it seems to work.... unless i run it under valgrind. while running the "tmp1" results checker for SECTION(6 10 3), valgrind indicates that the first "if (is_vector(sc->args))" under OP_P0LIST is producing a segfault. it _seems_ to work fine, though, even under electricfence, so i'm not sure how seriously i should take this... i've used valgrind with mixed results in the past. ray |