From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Neil Jerram" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: vm branch now uses vm repl by default Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:43:39 +0200 Message-ID: <49dd78620809091543j2a811a01lffe13d9be3c6ee7d@mail.gmail.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1221000239 13758 80.91.229.12 (9 Sep 2008 22:43:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 22:43:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: "Andy Wingo" Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 10 00:44:55 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KdBx8-0000sp-4B for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:44:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51770 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KdBw6-0005no-Nz for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:43:50 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KdBw3-0005kk-Ky for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:43:47 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KdBw0-0005en-44 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:43:47 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40799 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KdBw0-0005eY-0v for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:43:44 -0400 Original-Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.170]:43017) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KdBvz-0001ea-8V for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:43:43 -0400 Original-Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so2239852wfc.24 for ; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:43:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=h7fA8/eV7WOuXYos+DHCz4x4MhbzpRnQkT4k8pGNsRg=; b=PVKVvHBNJKAn/jDEGyHhMak5JtpGffDY9j7lKGyo61nJuvGdHobzJ69XRBUKiKGYK5 CE2zT+CPg0P5gFgXPK3k4F/NaYbPxur6l1lgbl2npE/UhrSBIpSrAPoTCDd8xhS6v66x DC58cb8iCzHrXbTbqmo8X6Hjw/khxs2h7kKi4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=rEqFcYybzWusQ8tiGwp39CtFLAErys01YuR4PNfyPvCYl1UCWuRjrfYT3Ux9hkDx33 wqyuFqVTpX7D4iVLhbBIofl5RUOItkI0Wz2avZ9WAXBhNcf84apqWZmMkgmWL0foK8+k W2Qd/oeHH+21oz6yEjsxz0adp+8aZf4MCm6PY= Original-Received: by 10.141.197.8 with SMTP id z8mr228565rvp.285.1221000219983; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:43:39 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.141.177.4 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:43:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:7651 Archived-At: 2008/9/9 Andy Wingo : > > Sources: > > 8 #(1 11 #f) > > Some instructions are annotated with source information. I guess source information is of interest for debugging, and I think you've observed previously elsewhere that the VM doesn't yet have much debugging support - by which I presume you mean something like the traps that the evaluator has. So I was just wondering if we actually _need_ any debugging support in the VM. If we can assume that the VM will always behave equivalently to the evaluator (except faster), then whenever a piece of code needs step-by-step debugging, the developer can drop back to using the evaluator in order to do that. Does that make sense? (Then another question is whether we can assume that the VM behaves equivalently to the evaluator. I wonder if there is some test methodology for partly proving this, by automatically running the evaluator in parallel with the VM, at least for code that doesn't have side effects? I'm sorry, this email has ended up a bit vague....) Neil