From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Bill Schottstaedt" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Serious bug in GUILE rational handling Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:39:32 -0800 Message-ID: <20061229123421.M18818@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> References: <20061224112539.M19482@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> <87irfvqupw.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: dough.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1167395986 13974 80.91.229.10 (29 Dec 2006 12:39:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:39:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 29 13:39:45 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1H0H1R-0002lL-QP for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:39:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H0H1R-0000iT-CJ for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 07:39:41 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H0H1P-0000ho-23 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 07:39:39 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H0H1M-0000h1-2d for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 07:39:37 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H0H1L-0000gy-W1 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 07:39:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [171.67.20.25] (helo=smtp2.stanford.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1H0H1L-0004e5-JU for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 07:39:35 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E9BD74C2F9; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:39:32 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from cm-mail.stanford.edu (cm-mail.Stanford.EDU [171.64.197.135]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D122F4C2DE; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:39:32 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from ccrma.stanford.edu (ccrma.stanford.edu [171.64.197.141]) by cm-mail.stanford.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id kBTCdWL29802; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:39:32 -0800 Original-Received: from ccrma.Stanford.EDU (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ccrma.stanford.edu (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.5) with ESMTP id kBTCdWF1029860; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:39:32 -0800 Original-To: Neil Jerram In-Reply-To: <87irfvqupw.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> X-Mailer: Open WebMail 2.41 20040926 X-OriginatingIP: 24.23.251.119 (bil) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:6376 Archived-At: I was talking about the original ratio implementation. Much to my surprise, I found no consistent timing difference before and after the reduction change. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel