Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Use vertical space more liberally in some scrutinizer messages

[megane]

address@hidden writes:

>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I've just pushed most of these patches, with signoffs, to a branch
>> called "scrutiny-message-formatting", and I think we should merge it.
>
> Thanks for doing this, I've ran the tests and so far things look good.
>
> I'm a bit concerned about the verbosity of the warnings. For generated
> code or for macro expansions, cases like
>
>   (if #f ...)
>
> or
>
>   (let ((a '(x . y)))
>     (if (pair? a) ...))
>
> will generate lots of output that only applies to trivially optimizable
> cases. I'm fine with merging the patches but  perhaps we should
> distinguish between true errors (that can't possibly work) and
> those warnings that apply to valid code but indicate redundancies.
>

Hi Felix,

I totally agree about these two cases. I'd vote for hiding these
messages altogether. Even if you're compiling with -verbose.

Maybe just show statistics for known predicate calls with statically
known results. There's already a statistic for dropped branches.

And I agree that the scrutinizer should only show warnings about
expressions it knows for sure are wrong.