~ chicken-core (chicken-5) 3545d5e88c34e218f88f1e4a52cf267235c7ef3b

commit 3545d5e88c34e218f88f1e4a52cf267235c7ef3b
Author:     Peter Bex <peter@more-magic.net>
AuthorDate: Fri Nov 20 18:50:54 2015 +0100
Commit:     Mario Domenech Goulart <mario.goulart@gmail.com>
CommitDate: Sat Nov 28 09:16:49 2015 -0200

    Fix equal? comparison of closures.
    
    Even though you're not supposed to compare closures (the spec says it's
    undefined), CHICKEN supports this to a degree.  Two closures are
    compared in such a way that the slots must be identical.  In other
    words, the function address and all the variables that are closed over
    are eq? to one another on both sides.
    
    The current implementation had an off-by-one which caused it to omit the
    comparison of the last slot, which holds either the last argument or the
    lambda-info in case we've compiled with lambda info.  This caused the
    equal? procedure to behave differently depending on whether the code was
    compiled with the -no-lambda-info option or without it.
    
    Thanks to Mario Goulart for finding this in ticket #1041.
    
    Signed-off-by: Mario Domenech Goulart <mario.goulart@gmail.com>

diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS
index 12e0014e..6aad0865 100644
--- a/NEWS
+++ b/NEWS
@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@
 
 - Runtime system:
   - Compiled programs with large literals won't crash on startup (#1221).
+  - Comparisons of closures now behave in a stable way, whether or not
+     the code was compiled with the -no-lambda-info option (#1041).
 
 - Compiler:
   - Specializations on implicit "or" types like "number" or "boolean" now
diff --git a/runtime.c b/runtime.c
index 2d477c00..0d1deacb 100644
--- a/runtime.c
+++ b/runtime.c
@@ -4012,7 +4012,7 @@ C_regparm C_word C_fcall C_equalp(C_word x, C_word y)
     if(bits & C_SPECIALBLOCK_BIT) {
       /* do not recurse into closures */
       if(C_header_bits(x) == C_CLOSURE_TYPE)
-	return !C_memcmp((void *)x, (void *)y, n * sizeof(C_word));
+	return !C_memcmp(C_data_pointer(x), C_data_pointer(y), n * sizeof(C_word));
       else if(C_block_item(x, 0) != C_block_item(y, 0)) return 0;
       else ++i;