(uncross-rcr-failure-form c)))))
|#
-;;; When cross-compiling, EVAL-WHEN :COMPILE-TOPLEVEL code is executed in the
-;;; host Common Lisp, not the target. A certain amount of dancing around is
-;;; required in order for this to work more or less correctly. (Fortunately,
-;;; more or less correctly is good enough -- it only needs to work on the
-;;; EVAL-WHEN expressions found in the SBCL sources themselves, and we can
-;;; exercise self-control to keep them from including anything which too
-;;; strongly resembles a language lawyer's test case.)
+;;; When cross-compiling, EVAL-WHEN :COMPILE-TOPLEVEL code is executed
+;;; in the host Common Lisp, not the target. A certain amount of
+;;; dancing around is required in order for this to work more or less
+;;; correctly. (Fortunately, more or less correctly is good enough --
+;;; it only needs to work on the EVAL-WHEN expressions found in the
+;;; SBCL sources themselves, and we can exercise self-control to keep
+;;; them from including anything which too strongly resembles a
+;;; language lawyer's test case.)
;;;
-;;; In order to make the dancing happen, we need to make a distinction between
-;;; SB!XC and COMMON-LISP when we're executing a form at compile time (i.e.
-;;; within EVAL-WHEN :COMPILE-TOPLEVEL) but we need to treat SB!XC as
-;;; synonymous with COMMON-LISP otherwise. This can't be done by making SB!XC a
-;;; nickname of COMMON-LISP, because the reader processes things before
-;;; EVAL-WHEN, so by the time EVAL-WHEN :COMPILE-TOPLEVEL saw a form, the
-;;; distinction it needs would be lost. Instead, we read forms preserving this
-;;; distinction (treating SB!XC as a separate package), and only when we're
-;;; about to process them (for any situation other than
-;;; EVAL-WHEN (:COMPILE-TOPLEVEL)) do we call UNCROSS on them to obliterate the
+;;; In order to make the dancing happen, we need to make a distinction
+;;; between SB!XC and COMMON-LISP when we're executing a form at
+;;; compile time (i.e. within EVAL-WHEN :COMPILE-TOPLEVEL) but we need
+;;; to treat SB!XC as synonymous with COMMON-LISP otherwise. This
+;;; can't be done by making SB!XC a nickname of COMMON-LISP, because
+;;; the reader processes things before EVAL-WHEN, so by the time
+;;; EVAL-WHEN :COMPILE-TOPLEVEL saw a form, the distinction it needs
+;;; would be lost. Instead, we read forms preserving this distinction
+;;; (treating SB!XC as a separate package), and only when we're about
+;;; to process them (for any situation other than EVAL-WHEN
+;;; (:COMPILE-TOPLEVEL)) do we call UNCROSS on them to obliterate the
;;; distinction.
#+sb-xc-host
(defun uncross (form)
(let ((;; KLUDGE: We don't currently try to handle circular program
- ;; structure, but we do at least detect it and complain about it..
+ ;; structure, but we do at least detect it and complain about
+ ;; it..
inside? (make-hash-table)))
(labels ((uncross-symbol (symbol)
(let ((old-symbol-package (symbol-package symbol)))
(string= (package-name old-symbol-package) "SB-XC"))
(values (intern (symbol-name symbol) "COMMON-LISP"))
symbol)))
- (rcr (form)
+ (rcr (form) ; recursive part
(cond ((symbolp form)
(uncross-symbol form))
((or (numberp form)
(stringp form))
form)
(t
- ;; If we reach here, FORM is something with internal
- ;; structure which could include symbols in the SB-XC
- ;; package.
+ ;; If we reach here, FORM is something with
+ ;; internal structure which could include
+ ;; symbols in the SB-XC package.
(when (gethash form inside?)
(let ((*print-circle* t))
- ;; This code could probably be generalized to work on
- ;; circular structure, but it seems easier just to
- ;; avoid putting any circular structure into the
- ;; bootstrap code.
+ ;; This code could probably be generalized
+ ;; to work on circular structure, but it
+ ;; seems easier just to avoid putting any
+ ;; circular structure into the bootstrap
+ ;; code.
(error "circular structure in ~S" form)))
(setf (gethash form inside?) t)
(unwind-protect
(typecase form
(cons (rcr-cons form))
- ;; Note: This function was originally intended to
- ;; search through structures other than CONS, but
- ;; it got into trouble with LAYOUT-CLASS and
- ;; CLASS-LAYOUT circular structure. After some
- ;; messing around, it turned out that recursing
- ;; through CONS is all that's needed in practice.)
- ;; FIXME: This leaves a lot of stale code here
- ;; (already commented/NILed out) for us to delete.
- #+nil ; only searching through CONS
- (simple-vector (rcr-simple-vector form))
- #+nil ; only searching through CONS
- (structure!object
- (rcr-structure!object form))
(t
- ;; KLUDGE: I know that UNCROSS is far from
- ;; perfect, but it's good enough to cross-compile
- ;; the current sources, and getting hundreds of
- ;; warnings about individual cases it can't
- ;; recurse through, so the warning here has been
- ;; turned off. Eventually it would be nice either
- ;; to set up a cleaner way of cross-compiling
- ;; which didn't have this problem, or to make
- ;; an industrial-strength version of UNCROSS
- ;; which didn't fail this way. -- WHN 20000201
+ ;; KLUDGE: There are other types
+ ;; (especially (ARRAY T) and
+ ;; STRUCTURE-OBJECT, but also HASH-TABLE
+ ;; and perhaps others) which could hold
+ ;; symbols. In principle we should handle
+ ;; those types as well. Failing that, we
+ ;; could give warnings for them. However,
+ ;; the current system works for
+ ;; bootstrapping in practice (because we
+ ;; don't use those constructs that way)
+ ;; and the warnings more annoying than
+ ;; useful, so I simply turned the
+ ;; warnings off. -- WHN 20001105
#+nil (warn 'uncross-rcr-failure :form form)
form))
(remhash form inside?)))))
(rcr-cdr (rcr cdr)))
(if (and (eq rcr-car car) (eq rcr-cdr cdr))
form
- (cons rcr-car rcr-cdr))))
- #+nil ; only searching through CONS in this version
- (rcr-simple-vector (form)
- (declare (type simple-vector form))
- (dotimes (i (length form))
- (let* ((aref (aref form i))
- (rcr-aref (rcr aref)))
- (unless (eq rcr-aref aref)
- (return (map 'vector #'rcr form))))
- form))
- #+nil ; only searching through CONS in this version
- (rcr-structure!object (form)
- (declare (type structure!object form))
- ;; Note: We skip the zeroth slot because it's used for LAYOUT,
- ;; which shouldn't require any translation and which is
- ;; complicated to think about anyway.
- (do ((i 1 (1+ i)))
- ((>= i (%instance-length form)) form)
- (let* ((instance-ref (%instance-ref form i))
- (rcr-instance-ref (rcr instance-ref)))
- (unless (eq rcr-instance-ref instance-ref)
- (return (rcr!-structure!object
- (copy-structure form)))))))
- #+nil ; only searching through CONS in this version
- (rcr!-structure!object (form)
- (declare (type structure!object form))
- ;; As in RCR-STRUCTURE!OBJECT, we skip the zeroth slot.
- (do ((i 1 (1+ i)))
- ((>= i (%instance-length form)))
- (let* ((instance-ref (%instance-ref form i))
- (rcr-instance-ref (rcr instance-ref)))
- ;; (By only calling SETF when strictly necessary,
- ;; we avoid bombing out unnecessarily when the
- ;; I-th slot happens to be read-only.)
- (unless (eq rcr-instance-ref instance-ref)
- (setf (%instance-ref form i)
- rcr-instance-ref))))))
+ (cons rcr-car rcr-cdr)))))
(rcr form))))
projects / sbcl.git / blobdiff