Hello,

I was playing around with the ECMAScript implementation in 2.0.5, and found
a bug when calling anonymous functions:

   ecmascript@(guile-user)> var foo = (function(x) { return x+1; })(1);
   $5 = 2
   ecmascript@(guile-user)> foo;
   ;;; <unknown-location>: warning: possibly unbound variable `foo'
   ERROR: In procedure #<procedure 8f4c140 ()>:
   ERROR: In procedure module-lookup: Unbound variable: foo

If you take a look at the compiled code:

   0    (assert-nargs-ee/locals 0)      ;; 0 args, 0 locals
   2    (new-frame)
   3    (toplevel-ref 7)
   5    (mv-call 0 :L1233)              ;; MV -> 15
  10    (drop)
  11    (br :L1234)                     ;; -> 18
  15    (truncate-values 0 0)
  18    (make-int8 2)                   ;; 2
  20    (return)
  21    (object-ref 8)
  23    (define)
  24    (void)
  25    (return)

I think it is the first (return) that causes the variable `foo' to not be
defined. I did a bit of hacking and found out the problem occurs during the
tree-il optimization step: Here's the tree-il code before optimization:

   (lambda () (lambda-case ((() #f #f #f () ()) (seq (call (@ (language
ecmascript impl) js-init)) (seq (define foo (call (lambda () (lambda-case
((() (x) #f #f ((@ (language ecmascript impl) *undefined*)) (#{x 875}#))
(let () () () (primcall return (primcall #{1+}# (lexical x #{x 875}#)))))))
(const 1))) (void))))))

And the tree-il after:

   (lambda () (lambda-case ((() #f #f #f () ()) (seq (call (@ (language
ecmascript impl) js-init)) (seq (define foo (primcall return (const 2)))
(void))))))

Regards,
Steve