rest-arg
&rest lmf-options)
&body body)
- `(bind-fast-lexical-method-macros (,args ,rest-arg ,next-method-call)
- (bind-lexical-method-functions (,@lmf-options)
- (bind-args (,(nthcdr (length args) lambda-list) ,rest-arg)
- ,@body))))
+ `(bind-fast-lexical-method-macros (,args ,rest-arg ,next-method-call)
+ (bind-lexical-method-functions (,@lmf-options)
+ (bind-args (,(nthcdr (length args) lambda-list) ,rest-arg)
+ ,@body))))
(defmacro bind-simple-lexical-method-macros ((method-args next-methods)
&body body)
#-sb-fluid (declaim (sb-ext:freeze-type fast-instance-boundp))
(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
-
-(defvar *allow-emf-call-tracing-p* nil)
-(defvar *enable-emf-call-tracing-p* #-testing nil #+testing t)
-
-) ; EVAL-WHEN
+ (defvar *allow-emf-call-tracing-p* nil)
+ (defvar *enable-emf-call-tracing-p* #-sb-show nil #+sb-show t))
\f
;;;; effective method functions
&rest required-args+rest-arg)
(unless (constantp restp)
(error "The RESTP argument is not constant."))
+ ;; FIXME: The RESTP handling here is confusing and maybe slightly
+ ;; broken if RESTP evaluates to a non-self-evaluating form. E.g. if
+ ;; (INVOKE-EFFECTIVE-METHOD-FUNCTION EMF '(ERROR "gotcha") ...)
+ ;; then TRACE-EMF-CALL-CALL-INTERNAL might die on a gotcha error.
(setq restp (eval restp))
- `(locally
-
- ;; In sbcl-0.6.11.43, the compiler would issue bogus warnings
- ;; about type mismatches in unreachable code when we
- ;; macroexpanded the GET-SLOTS-OR-NIL expressions here and
- ;; byte-compiled the code. GET-SLOTS-OR-NIL is now an inline
- ;; function instead of a macro, which seems sufficient to solve
- ;; the problem all by itself (probably because of some quirk in
- ;; the relative order of expansion and type inference) but we
- ;; also use overkill by NOTINLINEing GET-SLOTS-OR-NIL, because it
- ;; looks as though (1) inlining isn't that much of a win anyway,
- ;; and (2a) once you miss the FAST-METHOD-CALL clause you're
- ;; going to be slow anyway, but (2b) code bloat still hurts even
- ;; when it's off the critical path.
- (declare (notinline get-slots-or-nil))
-
+ `(progn
(trace-emf-call ,emf ,restp (list ,@required-args+rest-arg))
(cond ((typep ,emf 'fast-method-call)
- (invoke-fast-method-call ,emf ,@required-args+rest-arg))
+ (invoke-fast-method-call ,emf ,@required-args+rest-arg))
+ ;; "What," you may wonder, "do these next two clauses do?"
+ ;; In that case, you are not a PCL implementor, for they
+ ;; considered this to be self-documenting.:-| Or CSR, for
+ ;; that matter, since he can also figure it out by looking
+ ;; at it without breaking stride. For the rest of us,
+ ;; though: From what the code is doing with .SLOTS. and
+ ;; whatnot, evidently it's implementing SLOT-VALUEish and
+ ;; GET-SLOT-VALUEish things. Then we can reason backwards
+ ;; and conclude that setting EMF to a FIXNUM is an
+ ;; optimized way to represent these slot access operations.
,@(when (and (null restp) (= 1 (length required-args+rest-arg)))
`(((typep ,emf 'fixnum)
(let* ((.slots. (get-slots-or-nil
(let ((.new-value. ,(car required-args+rest-arg))
(.slots. (get-slots-or-nil
,(car required-args+rest-arg))))
- (when .slots.
- (setf (clos-slots-ref .slots. ,emf) .new-value.))))))
- #||
- ,@(when (and (null restp) (= 1 (length required-args+rest-arg)))
- `(((typep ,emf 'fast-instance-boundp)
- (let ((.slots. (get-slots-or-nil
- ,(car required-args+rest-arg))))
- (and .slots.
- (not (eq (clos-slots-ref
- .slots. (fast-instance-boundp-index ,emf))
- +slot-unbound+)))))))
- ||#
+ (when .slots.
+ (setf (clos-slots-ref .slots. ,emf) .new-value.))))))
+ ;; (In cmucl-2.4.8 there was a commented-out third ,@(WHEN
+ ;; ...) clause here to handle SLOT-BOUNDish stuff. Since
+ ;; there was no explanation and presumably the code is 10+
+ ;; years stale, I simply deleted it. -- WHN)
(t
(etypecase ,emf
(method-call
\f
(defmacro bind-fast-lexical-method-macros ((args rest-arg next-method-call)
&body body)
- `(macrolet ((call-next-method-bind (&body body)
+ `(macrolet ((narrowed-emf (emf)
+ ;; INVOKE-EFFECTIVE-METHOD-FUNCTION has code in it to
+ ;; dispatch on the possibility that EMF might be of
+ ;; type FIXNUM (as an optimized representation of a
+ ;; slot accessor). But as far as I (WHN 2002-06-11)
+ ;; can tell, it's impossible for such a representation
+ ;; to end up as .NEXT-METHOD-CALL. By reassuring
+ ;; INVOKE-E-M-F that when called from this context
+ ;; it needn't worry about the FIXNUM case, we can
+ ;; keep those cases from being compiled, which is
+ ;; good both because it saves bytes and because it
+ ;; avoids annoying type mismatch compiler warnings.
+ ;;
+ ;; KLUDGE: In sbcl-0.7.4.29, the compiler's type
+ ;; system isn't smart enough about NOT and intersection
+ ;; types to benefit from a (NOT FIXNUM) declaration
+ ;; here. -- WHN 2002-06-12
+ ;;
+ ;; FIXME: Might the FUNCTION type be omittable here,
+ ;; leaving only METHOD-CALLs? Failing that, could this
+ ;; be documented somehow? (It'd be nice if the types
+ ;; involved could be understood without solving the
+ ;; halting problem.)
+ `(the (or function method-call fast-method-call)
+ ,emf))
+ (call-next-method-bind (&body body)
`(let () ,@body))
(call-next-method-body (cnm-args)
`(if ,',next-method-call
(consp cnm-args)
(eq (car cnm-args) 'list))
`(invoke-effective-method-function
- ,',next-method-call nil
+ (narrowed-emf ,',next-method-call)
+ nil
,@(cdr cnm-args))
(let ((call `(invoke-effective-method-function
- ,',next-method-call
+ (narrowed-emf ,',next-method-call)
,',(not (null rest-arg))
,@',args
,@',(when rest-arg `(,rest-arg)))))
`(if ,cnm-args
(bind-args ((,@',args
,@',(when rest-arg
- `(&rest ,rest-arg)))
+ `(&rest ,rest-arg)))
,cnm-args)
,call)
,call))))
projects / sbcl.git / blobdiff