From unknown Tue Aug 19 10:03:14 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#13865: redefinition of + Resent-From: Ian Price Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-guile@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:44:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 13865 X-GNU-PR-Package: guile X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 13865@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: ioliveira@id.uff.br X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-guile@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.13623577894086 (code B ref -1); Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:44:01 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Mar 2013 00:43:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57765 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UCJUf-00013n-Tq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Mar 2013 19:43:09 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59498) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UCJUa-00013H-NA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Mar 2013 19:43:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UCJUG-0000rR-3r for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Mar 2013 19:42:43 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RP_MATCHES_RCVD, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:39706) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UCJUG-0000rL-0p for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Mar 2013 19:42:40 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42592) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UCJUB-0007P9-51 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Mar 2013 19:42:39 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UCJU7-0000qK-DK for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Mar 2013 19:42:35 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:48546) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UCJU7-0000qE-2k for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Mar 2013 19:42:31 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UCJUO-0003vn-Mo for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 01:42:48 +0100 Received: from host31-53-120-230.range31-53.btcentralplus.com ([31.53.120.230]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 01:42:48 +0100 Received: from ianprice90 by host31-53-120-230.range31-53.btcentralplus.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 01:42:48 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ From: Ian Price Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:42:12 +0000 Lines: 110 Message-ID: <87fw0cf123.fsf@Kagami.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host31-53-120-230.range31-53.btcentralplus.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Qes5l+gOnwi4u5LxuQ4Jw7ibDOc= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 208.118.235.17 X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) Hi guys, On #guile, euiuer (CCed) reported this, though he was to shy to report this himself. In guile 1.8.7 (define (foo) (+ 1 1)) (define (+ a b) (- a b)) (display (foo)) (display (+ 1 1)) it evails like 0 and 0. but.. (define (foo) (+ 1 1)) (display (foo)) (define (+ a b) (- a b)) (display (foo)) (display (+ 1 1)) it evails like 2 2 0 it is kind of odd. He confirms he gets these when he runs these from a script. I get the same on my 1.8.8 install, both at the repl and from a script. Since it evaluates correct if we run (bar) _after_ redefining + I think it's a safe bet to assume that 1.8 cached the reference to +, but not having been around for 1.8, this is a conjecture only. Now, 1.8 is the old series, how about 2? Running a recent master (9b977c836bf147d386944c401113aba32776fa68)[0]. >From the repl: scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> (define (foo) (+ 1 1)) scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> (define (+ a b) (- a b)) scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> (foo) $2 = 2 scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> (+ 1 1) $3 = 0 and scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> (define (foo) (+ 1 1)) scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> (foo) $2 = 2 scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> (define (+ a b) (- a b)) scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> (foo) $3 = 2 scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> (+ 1 1) $4 = 0 >From a script $ guile -q -s /tmp/file1.scm 22 $ guile -q -s /tmp/file2.scm 222 This behaviour can be "blamed" on guile 2's more aggressive optimisation. Indeed, scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> ,disassemble foo Disassembly of #: 0 (assert$B!](Bnargs$B!](Bee/locals 0) ;; 0 args, 0 locals 2 (make$B!](Bint8 2) ;; 2 at (unknown file):5:14 4 (return) is pretty much what we want usually. And I'm inclined to say NOTABUG for the repl when optimisation is turned on. However, in a script, this is a bug IMO, since we shouldn't really be optimising + if our top-level binding for + is not the builtin one, and we can certainly detect a redefinition of + within a file. Just to be sure, I tried turning off cse and peal, but ran into a different optimisation scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> ,option compile-options (#:partial-eval? #f #:cse? #f) scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> ,option compile-options (#:partial$B!](Beval? #f #:cse? #f) scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> (foo) $2 = 2 scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> (+ ) $3 = 0 scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> (define (+ a b) (- a b)) scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> (foo) $4 = 2 scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> (+ 1 1) $5 = 0 Have you guessed what it was? scheme@(guile$B!](Buser)> ,disassemble foo Disassembly of #: 0 (assert$B!](Bnargs$B!](Bee/locals 0) ;; 0 args, 0 locals 2 (make$B!](Bint8:1) ;; 1 3 (add1) at (unknown file):44:14 4 (return) So, you can't win on this one :) [0] I have not got a stable-2.0 install at the moment to compare, but I suspect it will be similar. -- Ian Price -- shift-reset.com "Programming is like pinball. The reward for doing it well is the opportunity to do it again" - from "The Wizardy Compiled" From unknown Tue Aug 19 10:03:14 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#13865: redefinition of + Resent-From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-guile@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 13:35:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 13865 X-GNU-PR-Package: guile X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Ian Price Cc: 13865@debbugs.gnu.org, control@debbugs.gnu.org, ioliveira@id.uff.br Received: via spool by 13865-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B13865.136240409412538 (code B ref 13865); Mon, 04 Mar 2013 13:35:01 +0000 Received: (at 13865) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Mar 2013 13:34:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58379 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UCVXa-0003G9-Hw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 08:34:54 -0500 Received: from xanadu.aquilenet.fr ([88.191.123.111]:58389) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UCVXZ-0003G0-8K; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 08:34:54 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xanadu.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C936CC6DC; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 14:34:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from xanadu.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (xanadu.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xBY-XLtFe6gV; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 14:34:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from pluto (unknown [193.50.110.91]) by xanadu.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7FA6AB9BA; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 14:34:37 +0100 (CET) From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) References: <87fw0cf123.fsf@Kagami.home> Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:34:37 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87fw0cf123.fsf@Kagami.home> (Ian Price's message of "Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:42:12 +0000") Message-ID: <87obezffv6.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130005 (Ma Gnus v0.5) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: close 13865 tag 13865 notabug thanks Ian Price skribis: > is pretty much what we want usually. And I'm inclined to say NOTABUG for > the repl when optimisation is turned on. However, in a script, this is a > bug IMO, since we shouldn't really be optimising + if our top-level > binding for + is not the builtin one, and we can certainly detect a > redefinition of + within a file. [...] Content analysis details: (1.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.4890] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) close 13865 tag 13865 notabug thanks Ian Price skribis: > is pretty much what we want usually. And I'm inclined to say NOTABUG for > the repl when optimisation is turned on. However, in a script, this is a > bug IMO, since we shouldn't really be optimising + if our top-level > binding for + is not the builtin one, and we can certainly detect a > redefinition of + within a file. The REPL is different from a =E2=80=9Creal=E2=80=9D program. In a stand-alone file like this: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- (define (+ a b) (- a b)) (pk (+ 1 1)) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- You get the expected behavior, because top-level =E2=80=98define=E2=80=99 i= s like =E2=80=98letrec*=E2=80=99. So closing it as not-a-bug. Let us know if you think of actions to be taken. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99. From unknown Tue Aug 19 10:03:14 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#13865: redefinition of + Resent-From: Ian Price Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-guile@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:25:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 13865 X-GNU-PR-Package: guile X-GNU-PR-Keywords: notabug To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Cc: 13865@debbugs.gnu.org, control@debbugs.gnu.org, ioliveira@id.uff.br Received: via spool by 13865-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B13865.136240710020658 (code B ref 13865); Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:25:01 +0000 Received: (at 13865) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Mar 2013 14:25:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58421 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UCWK1-0005N1-AC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 09:24:59 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com ([209.85.212.182]:60860) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UCWJx-0005Me-W7; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 09:24:55 -0500 Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id hi18so2096696wib.3 for ; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 06:24:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=aG0U/QKOjoX5qBiJJcbaU4Yg8mMdgIUbhNrX2D31DRA=; b=vT23FQI0VNmm5Xi/owqWFJPr5aYrZrAqE0NFyKQQOqDDzKMFWcBHgUC+BFSxqGBvtt ALzE7M3x6ykZDW94bi1tNThLTKDeLeqIUp9OA9JW5enNiV2qgQe2bBlKHyJbuI2kKJz6 5rmSfSLE0XVHBvi5l3gm1Jx+sDUC9bumS/GklPNafmdTE4YzI0DuhPsQk2JHvuhq7ahT GBTt54MTxy2RQLITKwuPwA11quN7mEWvRbXS9GRgPEueWDFbvDGzVkw1D6A5yk0yLHnN 2DCjosQcO6UT6UT4a4tPw0izfBDFr+nD6ZV72Xh3aH3Y+ydLUZt54SQ53bRZaVldh5rG jH/Q== X-Received: by 10.194.89.169 with SMTP id bp9mr32202725wjb.57.1362407073334; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 06:24:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kagami.home (host31-53-120-230.range31-53.btcentralplus.com. [31.53.120.230]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ek4sm14420206wib.11.2013.03.04.06.24.30 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Mar 2013 06:24:32 -0800 (PST) From: Ian Price References: <87fw0cf123.fsf@Kagami.home> <87obezffv6.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:24:26 +0000 In-Reply-To: <87obezffv6.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?="'s message of "Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:34:37 +0100") Message-ID: <877glnfdk5.fsf@Kagami.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp-2 X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court$(D+2(Bs) writes: > close 13865 > tag 13865 notabug > thanks > > Ian Price skribis: > >> is pretty much what we want usually. And I'm inclined to say NOTABUG for >> the repl when optimisation is turned on. However, in a script, this is a >> bug IMO, since we shouldn't really be optimising + if our top-level >> binding for + is not the builtin one, and we can certainly detect a >> redefinition of + within a file. > > The REPL is different from a $B!H(Breal$B!I(B program. > > In a stand-alone file like this: > > (define (+ a b) (- a b)) > (pk (+ 1 1)) > > You get the expected behavior, because top-level $B!F(Bdefine$B!G(B is like > $B!F(Bletrec*$B!G(B. > > So closing it as not-a-bug. Let us know if you think of actions to be > taken. Er, screw the repl, but it happens in a script as well. (define (foo) (+ 1 1)) (define (+ a b) (- a b)) (display (foo)) (display (+ 1 1)) (newline) $ guile -s /tmp/file1.scm ;;; note: source file /tmp/file1.scm ;;; newer than compiled /home/ian/.cache/guile/ccache/2.2-LE-4-3.1/tmp/file1.scm.go ;;; note: auto-compilation is enabled, set GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=0 ;;; or pass the --no-auto-compile argument to disable. ;;; compiling /tmp/file1.scm ;;; compiled /home/ian/.cache/guile/ccache/2.2-LE-4-3.1/tmp/file1.scm.go 22 (letrec* ((foo (lambda () (+ 1 1))) (+ (lambda (a b) (- a b)))) (display (foo)) (display (+ 1 1)) (newline)) $ guile -s /tmp/file1.scm ;;; note: source file /tmp/file1.scm ;;; newer than compiled /home/ian/.cache/guile/ccache/2.2-LE-4-3.1/tmp/file1.scm.go ;;; note: auto-compilation is enabled, set GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=0 ;;; or pass the --no-auto-compile argument to disable. ;;; compiling /tmp/file1.scm ;;; compiled /home/ian/.cache/guile/ccache/2.2-LE-4-3.1/tmp/file1.scm.go 00 If top-level module define is supposed to be a letrec*, it certainly isn't acting like one. -- Ian Price -- shift-reset.com "Programming is like pinball. The reward for doing it well is the opportunity to do it again" - from "The Wizardy Compiled" From unknown Tue Aug 19 10:03:14 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#13865: redefinition of + Resent-From: Andy Wingo Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-guile@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:40:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 13865 X-GNU-PR-Package: guile X-GNU-PR-Keywords: notabug To: Ian Price Cc: 13865@debbugs.gnu.org, Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , control@debbugs.gnu.org, ioliveira@id.uff.br Received: via spool by 13865-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B13865.136269238713603 (code B ref 13865); Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:40:02 +0000 Received: (at 13865) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Mar 2013 21:39:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37195 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDiXR-0003XJ-FS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:39:47 -0500 Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:64170 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDiXO-0003X9-Ka; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:39:43 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE343B179; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 16:39:08 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=L/mOti/+wZqFHOYR/N6hNzWLh5c=; b=FGU8u2 +XQlUtMi5AQuz9R1uy9VctaJBcOa9BhOSuTC/uEVZRSYmbv7GE7L7xbNDHfsQcZe AaEUX+VAKDd6uv1mrQPPnnE0K/J12+L9KWVAcEh/KevZ71h634VkuKCldwViDVwd BVhi2mYDYyADDIRZn51x7Oz1alv51Trhr20rA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=EUVy8cvRBFMg+gc17d5ayDGTJZ+J+gc/ hycxQbwEUrXr6HigL+bRvDw5128488A9WNosVxoNQCJoOVjNcke60JDivQxQ45tb RgufOBsXtNpOSTMXWHjkZdcmugJIXvUKLh2w27IHnpT090T+EaxVsv/Hf/v8orwr SPJtOormnOc= Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4110B178; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 16:39:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from badger (unknown [88.160.190.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 175ADB176; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 16:39:07 -0500 (EST) From: Andy Wingo References: <87fw0cf123.fsf@Kagami.home> <87obezffv6.fsf@gnu.org> <877glnfdk5.fsf@Kagami.home> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 22:39:05 +0100 In-Reply-To: <877glnfdk5.fsf@Kagami.home> (Ian Price's message of "Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:24:26 +0000") Message-ID: <876212evpi.fsf@pobox.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 710BCEE8-876F-11E2-A3F6-59240E5B5709-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) On Mon 04 Mar 2013 15:24, Ian Price writes: > Er, screw the repl, but it happens in a script as well. > > (define (foo) (+ 1 1)) > (define (+ a b) (- a b)) > (display (foo)) > (display (+ 1 1)) > (newline) > > $ guile -s /tmp/file1.scm > ;;; note: source file /tmp/file1.scm > ;;; newer than compiled /home/ian/.cache/guile/ccache/2.2-LE-4-3.1/tmp/file1.scm.go > ;;; note: auto-compilation is enabled, set GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=0 > ;;; or pass the --no-auto-compile argument to disable. > ;;; compiling /tmp/file1.scm > ;;; compiled /home/ian/.cache/guile/ccache/2.2-LE-4-3.1/tmp/file1.scm.go > 22 I see you are on master. Is this a problem only in master? $ ~/src/guile-master/meta/guile /tmp/foo.scm ;;; note: auto-compilation is enabled, set GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=0 ;;; or pass the --no-auto-compile argument to disable. ;;; compiling /tmp/foo.scm ;;; compiled /home/wingo/src/guile-master/cache/guile/ccache/2.2-LE-8-3.1/tmp/foo.scm.go 22 $ ~/src/guile/meta/guile /tmp/foo.scm ;;; note: auto-compilation is enabled, set GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=0 ;;; or pass the --no-auto-compile argument to disable. ;;; compiling /tmp/foo.scm ;;; compiled /home/wingo/src/guile/cache/guile/ccache/2.0-LE-8-2.0/tmp/foo.scm.go 00 Andy -- http://wingolog.org/