bounds.flan covers this already and the x86 survey cannot see it: the
program picks its case out of (at args 1) and survey.sh runs everything
with no arguments, so re-gating x86's lo <= hi would have failed
nothing. This probe reaches the reversed slice on its own, through
(len args) so that neither optimiser can fold the branch and the checker
has no literal to object to. It matches under the default sweep and
under SURVEY_FLAGS=--no-bounds-checks, which is the claim.
Also records what the same reading turned up and did not fix: x86 still
reports a negative slice-from-ptr promise through flan_slice_error, so
the two backends print different sentences for it, and no corpus program
reaches that case without arguments.
(/ 0.0 0.0) printed nan through LLVM, which folds it at compile time to
the positive quiet NaN, and -nan through x86, where divsd computes the
negative one. Put the operands in globals so nothing folds and both say
-nan, so the divergence is the folding path and not the arithmetic.
The sign bit of a NaN is not a property of the number and IEEE 754 does
not specify it, so the print site is where this is answered.
flan_f64_to_bytes renders any NaN as nan, and the two dev emitters do
the same. That is not a new rule: format-f64 in the prelude has always
answered nan for this value, so a build where (print x) said -nan and
(show x 2) said nan was contradicting itself inside one backend. An
infinity still prints signed.
format.flan prints the three non-finite values through print as well as
through show. It is in the survey corpus, so the one program pins the
printed form under dune test and the agreement between backends under
the survey.
The registry compacted whenever the table was three quarters full, and a
compaction reclaims dead entries and nothing else. A program holding more than
three quarters of the table in live blocks therefore compacted on every
allocation for the rest of its life, reclaiming nothing each time and holding
the table-wide epoch odd while it did. A listing racing that loop lost all
eight of its attempts and answered with zero rows -- "nothing is held", about a
program holding three thousand blocks, from the verb that exists to find a
leak. Measured at 199 wrong answers in 200.
The trigger now also asks whether there is an eighth of a table's worth of dead
to reclaim, which is a count four places maintain: a death, an arena's
free-all, a note written over a dead slot, and the sweep itself. That bounds
the cost from the other side too, since a sweep that runs reclaims at least 512
slots and so cannot run twice in 512 allocations.
Separately, flan_dev_reg_by_type answered a walk it could not take with zero
rows, which is the same number a program that had freed everything gets, and
stepped past slots flan_reg_snap could not copy while still calling the walk
whole. It now counts those slots and returns -1 with the count, the agent
refuses in a sentence the daemon already renders, and the snap contract says
which caller keeps it and why reg_at is allowed not to.
A note that finds no slot is still dropped -- dying because a diagnostic ran out
of room would be the diagnostic shooting the patient -- and now says so on
stderr once, quoting how many entries were dead rather than claiming the table
is all live.
test/dev_limits.c gains three modes, driven from test_reload: 3100 live blocks
read under a writer thread (1 right in 200 before, 200 after), 3000 live with
600 churned on top of them to prove the sweep still runs, and a genuinely full
table that must say so exactly once.
The lo <= hi test in check_slice and slice-from-ptr's n >= 0 sat behind
--no-bounds-checks in both backends, while the comment beside each said
they could not be dropped. They are not bounds checks: hi <= len asks
whether a range fits inside a length, and lo <= hi asks whether the word
about to be written into a %slice's length field is a count at all. The
first stays behind the flag, the second is now emitted everywhere, the
way flan_vec_as_slice has always validated its own l > h in plain C.
emit.ml emits two signal blocks rather than one and i1, so an unchecked
build carries one compare. x86.ml keeps all three frame temporaries
stored outside the flag and gates only the second compare, because the
third is the length the message prints.
The IR assertion in test_acceptance now says the two slice calls are
present under --no-bounds-checks rather than absent, and the same build
is run: case 2 and case -2 of bounds.flan must still die.
The members of a defenum are i32 at run time, but the reader hands the parser
an int64, so a value too large for the type arrived looking ordinary: truncated
by the x86 backend, malformed in the LLVM IR, and -- the reason this is a
correctness hole and not a nicety -- invisible to the duplicate-value rule
sitting right below it. That rule compares int64s, so (defenum E [A 0
B 4294967296]) passed it: the two differ as int64 and are both 0 as i32, and
the one check written to catch two names for one number waved through exactly
the case it exists for.
Each value is now checked where it is resolved, which is before the collision
scan runs, so the scan compares the numbers the program will actually have. A
value that does not fit is refused rather than quietly made to fit, naming the
member, its enum, and the value, with a different sentence for a value that was
written and one autoincrement walked into -- nothing in the source wrote
2147483648, so the refusal has to say where it came from before it can say it
is wrong.
The check is bound with a let rather than inlined into the cons, and that is
load-bearing: OCaml leaves :: operand order unspecified and takes the tail
first, so an inlined check would run after the recursive Int64.add and let
(defenum E [A 9223372036854775807 B]) wrap to min_int and refuse B for a number
in no one's source. Bound first, A is refused and the wrap is unreachable.
The parser is the only place this needs to happen: Parse.decl is the sole
constructor of Ast.Defenum's member values, and Load only re-qualifies the
enum's name.
Explicit-duplicate aliasing is untouched; that rule is deliberate.
