- (with-unique-names (outer-allow-with-interrupts)
- `(call-with-dx-function (call-without-interrupts
- ,outer-allow-with-interrupts)
- (declare (disable-package-locks allow-with-interrupts with-interrupts)
- (ignorable ,outer-allow-with-interrupts))
- (macrolet ((allow-with-interrupts (&body allow-forms)
- `(call-allowing-with-interrupts
- (lambda () ,@allow-forms)
- ,',outer-allow-with-interrupts))
- (with-local-interrupts (&body with-forms)
- `(call-with-local-interrupts
- (lambda () ,@with-forms)
- ,',outer-allow-with-interrupts)))
- (declare (enable-package-locks allow-with-interrupts with-interrupts))
- ,@body))))
-
-;;; Helper for making the DX closure allocation in WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS
-;;; less ugly.
-;;;
-;;; TODO: generalize for cases where FUNCTION takes more arguments
-;;; than just the thunk; use in other WITH-FOO macros that expand to a
-;;; CALL-WITH-FOO. I just did WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS since it's
-;;; performance critical (for example each call to GETHASH was consing
-;;; 48 bytes of WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS closures). --JES, 2007-06-08
-(sb!xc:defmacro call-with-dx-function ((function &rest args) &body body)
- (with-unique-names (fun1 fun2)
- `(flet ((,fun1 (,@args)
- ,@body))
- (declare (optimize sb!c::stack-allocate-dynamic-extent))
- (flet ((,fun2 (,@args)
- ;; Avoid consing up a closure: FUN1 will be inlined
- ;; and FUN2 will be stack-allocated, so we avoid
- ;; consing up a closure. This is split into two
- ;; separate functions to ensure that the body doesn't
- ;; get compiled with (OPTIMIZE
- ;; SB!C::STACK-ALLOCATE-DYNAMIC-EXTENT), which could
- ;; cause problems e.g. when the body contains
- ;; DYNAMIC-EXTENT declarations and the code is being
- ;; compiled with (SAFETY 3).
- (,fun1 ,@args)))
- (declare (dynamic-extent (function ,fun2)))
- (,function (function ,fun2))))))
+ (with-unique-names (outer-allow-with-interrupts without-interrupts-body)
+ `(dx-flet ((,without-interrupts-body ()
+ (declare (disable-package-locks allow-with-interrupts
+ with-local-interrupts))
+ (macrolet
+ ((allow-with-interrupts
+ (&body allow-forms)
+ `(let ((*allow-with-interrupts*
+ ,',outer-allow-with-interrupts))
+ ,@allow-forms))
+ (with-local-interrupts
+ (&body with-forms)
+ `(let ((*allow-with-interrupts*
+ ,',outer-allow-with-interrupts)
+ (*interrupts-enabled*
+ ,',outer-allow-with-interrupts))
+ (when ,',outer-allow-with-interrupts
+ (when *unblock-deferrables-on-enabling-interrupts-p*
+ (setq *unblock-deferrables-on-enabling-interrupts-p*
+ nil)
+ (sb!unix::unblock-deferrable-signals))
+ (when (or *interrupt-pending*
+ #!+sb-thruption *thruption-pending*)
+ (receive-pending-interrupt)))
+ (locally ,@with-forms))))
+ (let ((*interrupts-enabled* nil)
+ (,outer-allow-with-interrupts *allow-with-interrupts*)
+ (*allow-with-interrupts* nil))
+ (declare (ignorable ,outer-allow-with-interrupts))
+ (declare (enable-package-locks allow-with-interrupts
+ with-local-interrupts))
+ ,@body))))
+ (if *interrupts-enabled*
+ (unwind-protect
+ (,without-interrupts-body)
+ ;; If we were interrupted in the protected section,
+ ;; then the interrupts are still blocked and it remains
+ ;; so until the pending interrupt is handled.
+ ;;
+ ;; If we were not interrupted in the protected section,
+ ;; but here, then even if the interrupt handler enters
+ ;; another WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS, the pending interrupt will be
+ ;; handled immediately upon exit from said
+ ;; WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS, so it is as if nothing has happened.
+ (when (or *interrupt-pending*
+ #!+sb-thruption *thruption-pending*)
+ (receive-pending-interrupt)))
+ (,without-interrupts-body)))))