Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: crummy lisps

[Paul F. Dietz]

I've been writing tests that check if the implementation
signals errors in such cases, even if not required by ANSI.
See ansi-tests/beyond-ansi/.  This is still a work in progress.

        Paul

Camm Maguire wrote:
> Greetings!  This is my understanding too, and general goal that the
> compiler should follow.  Whether we achieve this is of course another
> matter entirely, especially as most everyone runs at safety 0 leaving
> safety 3 with little feedback.
>
> Take care,
>
> Robert Boyer <address@hidden> writes:
>
>
> > I should add the following.
> >
> > I think it is generally accepted rule of thumb in the Common Lisp community
> > that if you compile and execute with SAFETY = 3, then your Lisp job will not
> > die some horrible death (e.g., with a segmentation violation) because someone
> > did an RPLACA or a SETF-AREF on some garbage, and thereby randomly zapped
> > memory.  Another way of thinking about this is that at SAFETY = 3, life is
> > almost as nice as it always was on a Lisp machine.
> >
> > I do not think that the ANSI standard in any way requires this "rule of
> > thumb".  Maybe it should.  Maybe the authors thought it did.  But I can't
> > find it in writing and would happy if you told me where to look.
> >
> > Bob