GNU bug report logs - #48098
let/ec compilation bug

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 48098 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 48098 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.itampe <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-guile <at> gnu.org
Subject: let/ec compilation bug
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:48:55 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Here is an interesting test case that shows that fi we define
(define-syntax-rule (letec-m f) (let/ec c (f c)))
(define                    (letec-f f) (let/ec c (f c)))

we can get two different behaviors with letec-m compiles wrongly.
Obviously a bug!

This is important in casy you would like to make a loop macro effectively
with a continue directive.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

[a.scm (text/x-scheme, attachment)]

Message #10 received at 48098-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andy Wingo <wingo <at> igalia.com>
To: Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.itampe <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 48098-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#48098: let/ec compilation bug
Date: Sun, 02 May 2021 15:43:41 +0200

Thanks for the report; fixed!

On Thu 29 Apr 2021 12:48, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.itampe <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Here is an interesting test case that shows that fi we define
> (define-syntax-rule (letec-m f) (let/ec c (f c)))
> (define                    (letec-f f) (let/ec c (f c)))
>
> we can get two different behaviors with letec-m compiles wrongly. Obviously a bug!
>
> This is important in casy you would like to make a loop macro effectively with a continue directive.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.