0.7.13.4:

[sbcl.git] / src / compiler / lexenv.lisp

diff --git a/src/compiler/lexenv.lisp b/src/compiler/lexenv.lisp
index 033a4fa..acdf1a3 100644 (file)
--- a/src/compiler/lexenv.lisp
+++ b/src/compiler/lexenv.lisp
@@ -21,12 +21,14 @@
             (:constructor make-null-interactive-lexenv
                           (&aux (policy (list '(safety . 3)
                                               '(compilation-speed . 2)
+                                              '(debug . 2)
                                               '(speed . 1)
                                               '(space . 1)
-                                              '(debug . 1)
                                               '(inhibit-warnings . 1)))))
             (:constructor internal-make-lexenv
-                          (funs vars blocks tags type-restrictions
+                          (funs vars blocks tags
+                                 type-restrictions
+                                 weakend-type-restrictions
                                 lambda cleanup policy)))
   ;; an alist of (NAME . WHAT), where WHAT is either a FUNCTIONAL (a
   ;; local function), a DEFINED-FUN, representing an
@@ -56,6 +58,7 @@
   ;; THING is a continuation, this is used to track the innermost THE
   ;; type declaration.
   (type-restrictions nil :type list)
+  (weakend-type-restrictions nil :type list)
   ;; the lexically enclosing lambda, if any
   ;;
   ;; FIXME: This should be :TYPE (OR CLAMBDA NULL), but it was too hard
@@ -73,21 +76,81 @@
     (null (make-null-lexenv))
     (lexenv x)))
 
-;;; Is it safe to just grab the lambda expression LAMBDA in isolation,
-;;; ignoring the LEXENV?
-;;;
-;;; Note: The corresponding CMU CL code did something hairier so that
-;;; it could save inline definitions of DEFUNs in nontrivial lexical
-;;; environments. If it's ever important to try to do that, take a
-;;; look at the old CMU CL #'INLINE-SYNTACTIC-CLOSURE.
-(defun lambda-independent-of-lexenv-p (lambda lexenv)
+(defun maybe-inline-syntactic-closure (lambda lexenv)
   (declare (type list lambda) (type lexenv lexenv))
-  (aver (eql (first lambda) 'lambda)) ; basic sanity check
-  ;; This is a trivial implementation that just makes sure that LEXENV
-  ;; doesn't have anything interesting in it. A more sophisticated
-  ;; implementation could skip things in LEXENV which aren't captured
-  ;; by LAMBDA, but this implementation doesn't try.
-  (and (null (lexenv-blocks lexenv))
-       (null (lexenv-tags lexenv))
-       (null (lexenv-vars lexenv))
-       (null (lexenv-funs lexenv))))
+  (aver (eql (first lambda) 'lambda))
+  ;; We used to have a trivial implementation, verifying that lexenv
+  ;; was effectively null. However, this fails to take account of the
+  ;; idiom
+  ;;
+  ;; (declaim (inline foo))
+  ;; (macrolet ((def (x) `(defun ,x () ...)))
+  ;;   (def foo))
+  ;;
+  ;; which, while too complicated for the cross-compiler to handle in
+  ;; unfriendly foreign lisp environments, would be good to support in
+  ;; the target compiler. -- CSR, 2002-05-13 and 2002-11-02
+  (let ((vars (lexenv-vars lexenv))
+       (funs (lexenv-funs lexenv)))
+    (collect ((decls) (macros) (symbol-macros))
+      (cond
+       ((or (lexenv-blocks lexenv) (lexenv-tags lexenv)) nil)
+       ((and (null vars) (null funs)) `(lambda-with-lexenv
+                                        nil nil nil
+                                        ,@(cdr lambda)))
+       ((dolist (x vars nil)
+          #+sb-xc-host
+          ;; KLUDGE: too complicated for cross-compilation
+          (return t)
+          #-sb-xc-host
+          (let ((name (car x))
+                (what (cdr x)))
+            ;; only worry about the innermost binding
+            (when (eq x (assoc name vars :test #'eq))
+              (typecase what
+                (cons
+                 (aver (eq (car what) 'macro))
+                 (symbol-macros x))
+                (global-var
+                 ;; A global should not appear in the lexical
+                 ;; environment? Is this true? FIXME!
+                 (aver (eq (global-var-kind what) :special))
+                 (decls `(special ,name)))
+                (t
+                 ;; we can't inline in the presence of this object
+                 (return t))))))
+        nil)
+       ((dolist (x funs nil)
+          #+sb-xc-host
+          ;; KLUDGE: too complicated for cross-compilation (and
+          ;; failure of OAOO in comments, *sigh*)
+          (return t)
+          #-sb-xc-host
+          (let ((name (car x))
+                (what (cdr x)))
+            ;; again, only worry about the innermost binding, but
+            ;; functions can have name (SETF FOO) so we need to use
+            ;; EQUAL for the test.
+            (when (eq x (assoc name funs :test #'equal))
+              (typecase what
+                (cons
+                 (macros (cons name (function-lambda-expression (cdr what)))))
+                ;; FIXME: Is there a good reason for this not to be
+                ;; DEFINED-FUN (which :INCLUDEs GLOBAL-VAR, in case
+                ;; you're wondering how this ever worked :-)? Maybe
+                ;; in conjunction with an AVERrance that it's not an
+                ;; (AND GLOBAL-VAR (NOT GLOBAL-FUN))? -- CSR,
+                ;; 2002-07-08
+                (global-var
+                 (when (defined-fun-p what)
+                   (decls `(,(car (rassoc (defined-fun-inlinep what)
+                                          *inlinep-translations*))
+                              ,name))))
+                (t (return t))))))
+        nil)
+       (t
+        ;; if we get this far, we've successfully dealt with
+        ;; everything in FUNS and VARS, so:
+        `(lambda-with-lexenv ,(decls) ,(macros) ,(symbol-macros)
+                             ,@(cdr lambda)))))))
+