chicken-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] "picky" scrutinizer mode


From: Felix
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] "picky" scrutinizer mode
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:12:38 +0100 (CET)

From: Alan Post <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] "picky" scrutinizer mode
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 05:02:42 -0700

> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 03:22:20AM -0500, Felix wrote:
>> From: Alan Post <address@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] "picky" scrutinizer mode
>> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 20:11:28 -0700
>> 
>> > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 05:35:22AM -0500, Felix wrote:
>> >> Hi!
>> >> 
>> >> I have added "-picky" to the experimental branch (I haven't created a
>> >> change request, since the impact is minimal and this feature is purely
>> >> optional). When given, the scrutinizer warns about undefined branches
>> >> in conditionals in tail-position of global procedures that do not
>> >> perform a self-call.  The scrutinizer does no inter-procedural
>> >> flow-analysis, so there is no warning for this situation for local
>> >> procedures which are called in tail-position (which, if I understood
>> >> correctly, is what Joerg would have liked most).
>> >> 
>> > 
>> > Is there a (declare ...) syntax to mimic this command-line option?
>> 
>> No, not yet. I don't think using declarations for this is overly
>> practical, to be honest, since this should be independent of the
>> code.
>> 
> 
> Ah, interesting.  I keep all of my optimization settings in a
> special file using (declare ...).  I've been meaning to ask how well these
> correspond to the command-line options, whether there are (declare ...)
> optimizations that aren't available from the command-line or command-line
> optimizations not avaliable from (declare ...).

But `-picky' is not an optimization setting!


cheers,
felix



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]