[ sisc-Bugs-1447904 ] different error message for identical code

Bugs item #1447904, was opened at 2006-03-11 14:50
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=379534&aid=1447904&group_id=23735

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 3
Submitted By: Matthias Radestock (mradestock)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: different error message for identical code

Initial Comment:
Our optimistic inlining and automatic unoptimizer seem
to play havoc with error messages:

SISC (1.13.0-alpha)
#;> (define (f) (+ (/ 1 0)))
#;> (f)
Error in /: division by zero.
console:1:13: <indeterminate call>

Why can't it figure out that the "indeterminate call"
is an "argument of +" - it seems to be able to do this
elsewhere?

#;> (define (my-/ . args) (apply / args))
#;> (define (g) (+ (my-/ 1 0)))
#;> (g)
Error in /: division by zero.
console:5:16: <from call to my-/>

Now it doesn't even mention the call to + anymore!

#;> (define my-/ /)
#;> (g)
Error in /: division by zero.
console:5:16: <from call to my-/> [Repeated twice]

Same as before, but why is my-/ repeated twice now?

#;> (define (h) (+ (my-/ 1 0)))
#;> (h)
Error in my-/: division by zero.
console:9:13: <indeterminate call>

Same as first example, except there is no mention of
/!! More significantly, note how this is different from
the results for g, even though g and h have identical
bodies.

#;> (define (my-/ . args) (apply / args))
#;> (h)
Error in /: division by zero.

Now it seems to have lost track completely.


I think part of the problem may be perhaps annotations
may not get established properly when producing
FixedAppExps. There's a weird conditional in the compiler,
                        if (!r.dynenv.hedgedInlining) {
                            addAnnotations(fixedCall,
lastRand.annotations);
                           
((OptimisticExpression)fixedCall).dropSafe();
                        }

I have no idea what that's for, but it looks suspicious.

I also don't understand why FixedAppExp_0 conses up an
AppExp on demand (with no annotations), rather than the
compiler supplying an appropriate AppExp.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=379534&aid=1447904&group_id=23735


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642