Re: [Gcl-devel] New random tester failures

[Paul F. Dietz]

Camm Maguire wrote:

> Indeed.  OK, took a stab at a more general solution in CVS now.  There
> is a quite loquacious compiler note for now describing the reasoning
> whereby the compiler inserts type declarations into let and let*
> bodies, and bodies following lambda expressions, whether the bindings
> are introduced by macros or not.  This can be expanded upon further,
> primarily through careful proclamation of our existing functions.  >2k
> random tester iterations pass,

I've run 91K iterations of the random tester overnight with terms
of size (1+ (random 200)).  I've now changed the random tester's
probabilities to make LET/LET* forms more often and am running
it again with terms of size (1+ (random 1000)).

No failures yet (I reduced the chance of setf/incf/etc. so the
incf/decf bug has not yet been encountered.)

        Paul