Changes from arch/CVS synchronization

ChangeLog

@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2007-07-25  Ludovic Courtès  <ludo@gnu.org>
+
+	* NEWS: Mention bug fix for "(set! 'x #f)".
+
 2007-07-18  Ludovic Courtès  <ludo@gnu.org>
 
 	* NEWS: Mention SRFI-37.

NEWS

@@ -11,6 +11,10 @@ Changes in 1.8.3 (since 1.8.2)
 
 ** `(srfi srfi-37)'
 
+* Bugs fixed
+
+** Expressions like "(set! 'x #t)" no longer yield a crash
+
 
 Changes in 1.8.2 (since 1.8.1):
 

libguile/ChangeLog

@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2007-07-25  Ludovic Courtès  <ludo@gnu.org>
+
+	* eval.c (macroexp): When `scm_ilength (res) <= 0', return
+	immediately.  This used to produce a circular memoized
+	expression, e.g., for `(set (quote x) #t)'.
+
 2007-07-15  Ludovic Courtès  <ludo@gnu.org>
 
 	* script.c (scm_compile_shell_switches): Updated copyright year.

libguile/eval.c

@@ -878,26 +878,29 @@ macroexp (SCM x, SCM env)
 
   SCM_SETCAR (x, orig_sym);  /* Undo memoizing effect of lookupcar */
   res = scm_call_2 (SCM_MACRO_CODE (proc), x, env);
-  
+
   if (scm_ilength (res) <= 0)
-    res = scm_list_2 (SCM_IM_BEGIN, res);
+    /* Result of expansion is not a list.  */
+    return (scm_list_2 (SCM_IM_BEGIN, res));
+  else
+    {
+      /* njrev: Several queries here: (1) I don't see how it can be
+	 correct that the SCM_SETCAR 2 lines below this comment needs
+	 protection, but the SCM_SETCAR 6 lines above does not, so
+	 something here is probably wrong.  (2) macroexp() is now only
+	 used in one place - scm_m_generalized_set_x - whereas all other
+	 macro expansion happens through expand_user_macros.  Therefore
+	 (2.1) perhaps macroexp() could be eliminated completely now?
+	 (2.2) Does expand_user_macros need any critical section
+	 protection? */
 
-  /* njrev: Several queries here: (1) I don't see how it can be
+      SCM_CRITICAL_SECTION_START;
-     correct that the SCM_SETCAR 2 lines below this comment needs
+      SCM_SETCAR (x, SCM_CAR (res));
-     protection, but the SCM_SETCAR 6 lines above does not, so
+      SCM_SETCDR (x, SCM_CDR (res));
-     something here is probably wrong.  (2) macroexp() is now only
+      SCM_CRITICAL_SECTION_END;
-     used in one place - scm_m_generalized_set_x - whereas all other
-     macro expansion happens through expand_user_macros.  Therefore
-     (2.1) perhaps macroexp() could be eliminated completely now?
-     (2.2) Does expand_user_macros need any critical section
-     protection? */
 
-  SCM_CRITICAL_SECTION_START;
+      goto macro_tail;
-  SCM_SETCAR (x, SCM_CAR (res));
+    }
-  SCM_SETCDR (x, SCM_CDR (res));
-  SCM_CRITICAL_SECTION_END;
-
-  goto macro_tail;
 }
 
 /* Start of the memoizers for the standard R5RS builtin macros.  */

test-suite/ChangeLog

@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+2007-07-25  Ludovic Courtès  <ludo@gnu.org>
+
+	* tests/srfi-17.test (%some-variable): New.
+	(set!)[target uses macro]: New test prefix.  The
+	"(set! (@@ ...) 1)" test is in accordance with Marius Vollmer's
+	change in `libguile' dated 2003-11-17.
+
 2007-07-18  Stephen Compall  <s11@member.fsf.org>
 
 	* tests/syntax.test: Add SRFI-61 `cond' tests.

test-suite/tests/srfi-17.test

@@ -48,6 +48,8 @@
 ;; set!
 ;;
 
+(define %some-variable #f)
+
 (with-test-prefix "set!"
 
   (with-test-prefix "target is not procedure with setter"
@@ -58,7 +60,20 @@
 
     (pass-if-exception "(set! '#f 1)"
       exception:bad-variable
-      (eval '(set! '#f 1) (interaction-environment)))))
+      (eval '(set! '#f 1) (interaction-environment))))
+
+  (with-test-prefix "target uses macro"
+
+    (pass-if "(set! (@@ ...) 1)"
+      (eval '(set! (@@ (test-suite test-srfi-17) %some-variable) 1)
+            (interaction-environment))
+      (equal? %some-variable 1))
+
+    ;; The `(quote x)' below used to be memoized as an infinite list before
+    ;; Guile 1.8.3.
+    (pass-if-exception "(set! 'x 1)"
+      exception:bad-variable
+      (eval '(set! 'x 1) (interaction-environment)))))
 
 ;;
 ;; setter