IRC channel logs

***endou_ is now known as endou

<civodul>Hello Guilers!

***wingo_ is now known as wingo

<civodul>wingo: i just now took the freedom to request a change to "git-multimail" for guile-commits: https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?108565

<civodul>let me know if that's a problem

<civodul>(i think that's a great improvement)

<wingo>sgtm :-)

<civodul>cool

***_zxq9_ is now known as zxq9

<nalaginrut>maybe we should add this thing: (->signature "int foo(int, int)") for better FFI handling

<taylanub>Putting syntax into a string makes me immediately raise an eyebrow, though it might be nice for convenience.

<lloda>parsers parse strings /shrug

<nalaginrut>well, it'll be expanded to fill pointer->procedure

<nalaginrut>which may provide an explicit way for FFI

*civodul likes pointer->procedure

*wingo working on language/cps/types.scm

<civodul>wingo: i saw that, and that looks pretty cool

<wingo>did i upload that actually? i don't think so

<wingo>i uploaded a lame thing in dce but there needs to be a separate pass, for various reasons

*wingo wants (match (vector 1 2 3) (#(a b c) (+ a b c))) to reduce to 6

<civodul>i saw a commit mentioning a "lame type analysis" or something, no?

<civodul>ah yes

<civodul>so you'll want to type-annotate primitives?

<wingo>yes, i just finished doing that -- but not it's not just annotating primitives

<wingo>i want to do range analysis at the same time

*wingo uploads the module commentary somewhere

<civodul>ooh, fancy stuff

<wingo> http://paste.lisp.org/display/142509

<wingo>it's n-squared tho

<civodul>nice read, very cool

<civodul>we're getting a very nice compiler

<wingo>the number types are very representational -- so there's &exact-integer, &flonum, &complex, and &fraction

<wingo>whether a value will definitely be a fixnum or not depends on its range

<wingo>and it having the exact type &exact-integer

<civodul>yes

<wingo>i realized this morning that primcalls that might cause type-check assertions might be good places to unbox numbers

<wingo>like if you can prove that the arguments of a particular `+' invocation are small integers, you can unconditionally unbox them

<wingo>and if you can't prove it but you know it has to be true, as in the index of vector-ref, you can do a check-and-unbox beforehand

<wingo>anyway, not a win until we get native compilation i think, but interesting to think about

<wingo>unboxing floats could be a win today of course, but the runtime would have to be a bit more robust, and allow unboxed stack values

<civodul>that opens a wide range of possibilities

<wingo>indeed

<taylanub>wingo: um, that `match' does reduce to 6 here, on 2.0.11

<wingo>taylanub: perhaps you used #(1 2 3)

<wingo>not (vector 1 2 3)

<wingo>they are different.

<taylanub>nope, http://sprunge.us/jcFi

<wingo>neat

<wingo>hah

<wingo>i'm not talking about the result, i'm talking about the compiled code :)

<taylanub>oh, haha

<taylanub>sorry :)

<civodul>wingo: could you comment on the thread on gdb@ about the parallel mark bug?

<wingo>civodul: hm, not on the list; will take a look, sure.

<civodul>i Cc'd you, no excuse ;-)

<wingo>ok :)

<civodul>heheh

<wingo>"i'm working on a compiler" is the worst excuse when it's my job :P

<daviid>wingo: wrt guile-gnome, I realize that some of patches I submited and the ones that I will submit (I have a test-suite related series of updates so that make check works, corrections for some scheme files tht raised bug at compile time...) are not compatible with guile-1.8. I really don't want to 'looze' my time about that and so I would like to create a devel branch for the guile-gnome repository where once you're ok I can

<daviid>push... which eventually will become a release strictly depending on guile-2, is that ok with you?

<davexunit>to hell with guile 1.8, imo. It's been 3 years since 2.0 was released.

<wingo>daviid: sure, please feel free to create branches

<daviid>wingo: ok, tx

<wingo>brb

***sneek_ is now known as sneek

IRC channel logs

2014-05-12.log