1
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guile.git synced 2025-06-10 14:00:21 +02:00
guile/test-suite
Andy Wingo bb97e4abd4 dynamic-wind in terms of wind and unwind; remove <dynwind>, @dynamic-wind
* doc/ref/compiler.texi: Remove mention of <dynwind>.
* libguile/eval.c (eval): Remove SCM_M_DYNWIND case.
* libguile/expand.c: Remove scm_sym_at_dynamic_wind.
* libguile/memoize.c (do_wind, do_unwind): A couple of hacky subrs.  If
  we see a wind or unwind primcall, we expand to a call of a quoted subr
  value.  It works and removes a kind of memoized value from the
  interpreter.  For the compiler,primcalls to wind and unwind are
  handled specially.
  (MAKMEMO_DYNWIND): Remove.
  (scm_tc16_memoizer): Remove.  Yay!
  (memoize): Remove speculative lookup for toplevels to see if they are
  memoizers: there are no more memoizers.  Memoize calls to the wind and
  unwind primitives.
  (m_dynamic_wind): Remove.
  (unmemoize): Remove dynwind case.
  (scm_init_memoize): Add wind and unwind local definitions.

* module/ice-9/boot-9.scm (dynamic-wind): Reimplement in terms of "wind"
  and "unwind" primitives.  These primitives are not exposed to other
  modules.

* module/ice-9/eval.scm (primitive-eval): Remove dynwind case.
* module/language/scheme/decompile-tree-il.scm (do-decompile):
  (choose-output-names): Remove dynwind cases.

* module/language/tree-il.scm: Remove <dynwind>.  Yaaay!

* module/language/tree-il/analyze.scm (analyze-lexicals): Remove dynwind
  cases.

* module/language/tree-il/compile-glil.scm (*primcall-ops*): Add wind
  and unwind.
  (flatten-lambda-case): Remove dynwind case.  Yay!

* module/language/tree-il/cse.scm (cse):
* module/language/tree-il/debug.scm (verify-tree-il):
* module/language/tree-il/effects.scm (make-effects-analyzer):
* module/language/tree-il/peval.scm (singly-valued-expression?, peval):
  Remove <dywind> cases.  Inline primcalls to dynamic-wind.  Add
  constant folding for thunk?.

* module/language/tree-il/primitives.scm (*interesting-primitive-names*):
  Remove @dynamic-wind, and add procedure? and thunk?.
  (*effect+exception-free-primitives*): Add procedure? and thunk?.
  (*multiply-valued-primitives*): Remove @dynamic-wind.
  Remove @dynamic-wind expander.

* test-suite/tests/peval.test ("partial evaluation"): Update tests for
  dynwind desugaring.
2013-06-27 22:02:43 +02:00
..
lalr remove duplicate when/unless definitions 2012-01-20 21:16:50 +01:00
standalone Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/stable-2.0' 2013-04-14 02:48:33 -04:00
test-suite tests: Add pass-if-equal' support in c&e'. 2013-04-05 22:54:14 +02:00
tests dynamic-wind in terms of wind and unwind; remove <dynwind>, @dynamic-wind 2013-06-27 22:02:43 +02:00
vm GUILE_INSTALL_LOCALE=1 during build 2013-03-07 11:02:33 +01:00
ChangeLog-2008
guile-test make guile-test work without configuration 2010-12-07 13:21:00 +01:00
Makefile.am Add RTL assembler 2013-06-09 17:28:25 +02:00
README

This directory contains some tests for Guile, and some generic test
support code.

To run these tests, you will need a version of Guile more recent than
15 Feb 1999 --- the tests use the (ice-9 and-let*) and (ice-9
getopt-long) modules, which were added to Guile around then.

For information about how to run the test suite, read the usage
instructions in the comments at the top of the guile-test script.

You can reference the file `lib.scm' from your own code as the module
(test-suite lib); it also has comments at the top and before each
function explaining what's going on.

Please write more Guile tests, and send them to bug-guile@gnu.org.
We'll merge them into the distribution.  All test suites must be
licensed for our use under the GPL, but I don't think I'm going to
collect assignment papers for them.



Some test suite philosophy:

GDB has an extensive test suite --- around 6300 tests.  Every time the
test suite catches a bug, it's great.

GDB is so complicated that folks are often unable to get a solid
understanding of the code before making a change --- we just don't
have time.  You'll see people say things like, "Here's a fix for X; it
doesn't cause any regressions."  The subtext is, I made a change that
looks reasonable, and the test suite didn't complain, so it must be
okay.

I think this is terrible, because it suggests that the writer is using
the test suite as a substitute for having a rock-solid explanation of
why their changes are correct.  The problem is that any test suite is
woefully incomplete.  Diligent reasoning about code can catch corner
conditions or limitations that no test suite will ever find.



Jim's rule for test suites:

Every test suite failure should be a complete, mysterious surprise,
never a possibility you were prepared for.  Any other attitude
indicates that you're using the test suite as a crutch, which you need
only because your understanding is weak.