bug#48098: let/ec compilation bug

bug#48098: let/ec compilation bug

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 355 bytes --]

Here is an interesting test case that shows that fi we define
(define-syntax-rule (letec-m f) (let/ec c (f c)))
(define                    (letec-f f) (let/ec c (f c)))

we can get two different behaviors with letec-m compiles wrongly.
Obviously a bug!

This is important in casy you would like to make a loop macro effectively
with a continue directive.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 464 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: a.scm --]
[-- Type: text/x-scheme, Size: 323 bytes --]

(use-modules (ice-9 control))

(define-syntax-rule (letec-m f)
  (let/ec c (f c)))

(define (letec-f f)
  (let/ec c (f c)))

(letec-m (lambda (break) (let lp ((i 0)) (when (< i 2) (pk 1 i) (lp (+ i 1))))))
(letec-f (lambda (break) (let lp ((i 0)) (when (< i 2) (pk 2 i) (lp (+ i 1))))))

#|
OUTPUT:

;;; (2 0)
;;; (2 1)
|#

bug#48098: let/ec compilation bug

[Andy Wingo]

Thanks for the report; fixed!

On Thu 29 Apr 2021 12:48, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.itampe@gmail.com> writes:

> Here is an interesting test case that shows that fi we define
> (define-syntax-rule (letec-m f) (let/ec c (f c)))
> (define                    (letec-f f) (let/ec c (f c)))
>
> we can get two different behaviors with letec-m compiles wrongly. Obviously a bug!
>
> This is important in casy you would like to make a loop macro effectively with a continue directive.