Hunted the C --fast compiler bug that was hanging on the EML proof.
Narrowed to a specific pattern:
(let loop ((t start))
(let ((next (fn t)))
(if next (loop next) t)))
A named-let whose body is (let ((x (...))) (if x (recurse x) base)).
The recursive call inside the inner let+if branch never reaches the
loop closure — hangs or segfaults.
Reproducible with a 4-line test case; filed as
c/TODO-named-let-bytecode.md with minimal repro, suspected cause
(env-chain mismatch between PUSH_ENV and TAIL_CALL), and a known-
good workaround.
Workaround landed in proof/eml_proof_in_lumbda.lsp's `normalize`:
replaced the named-let with an internal recursive `define`, which
compiles correctly under --fast. Same logic, different surface
syntax. All four Lumbda tiers now verify the proof.
Benchmark refreshed (make bench-proof):
cold cached
Lumbda asm 46 ms 7 ms
Lumbda C --fast 65 ms 9 ms
Lumbda C (tree-walker) 87 ms 12 ms
Lumbda Python --fast 651 ms 232 ms
Lean 4 722 ms 5 ms
All four tiers now green. Asm still fastest (46 ms cold vs Lean's
722 ms — ~16× faster). Cached Lumbda asm 7 ms vs Lean 5 ms (within
1.5×). The C --fast tier went from "hangs" to 65 ms cold — competitive
with asm once the compiler bug is dodged.
Whitepaper §8.6 table updated; prior "(hangs)" row is gone;
footnote on the named-let workaround links the TODO file.
russell@unturf.com
3463fadd3f