;;; 19991204) haven't been motivated to reverse engineer them from the
;;; code and document them here.
;;;
-;;; FIXME: This is awkward and unmnemonic. There is a function
-;;; (INVALID-WRAPPER-P) to test this return result abstractly for
-;;; invalidness but it's not called consistently; the functions that
-;;; need to know whether a wrapper is invalid often test (EQ
-;;; (WRAPPER-STATE X) T), ick. It would be good to use the abstract
-;;; test instead. It would probably be even better to switch the sense
-;;; of the WRAPPER-STATE function, renaming it to WRAPPER-INVALID and
-;;; making it synonymous with LAYOUT-INVALID. Then the
-;;; INVALID-WRAPPER-P function would become trivial and would go away
-;;; (replaced with WRAPPER-INVALID), since all the various invalid
-;;; wrapper states would become generalized boolean "true" values. --
-;;; WHN 19991204
+;;; FIXME: We have removed the persistent use of this function throughout
+;;; the PCL codebase, instead opting to use INVALID-WRAPPER-P, which
+;;; abstractly tests the return result of this function for invalidness.
+;;; However, part of the original comment that is still applicable follows.
+;;; --njf, 2002-05-02
+;;;
+;;; FIXME: It would probably be even better to switch the sense of the
+;;; WRAPPER-STATE function, renaming it to WRAPPER-INVALID and making it
+;;; synonymous with LAYOUT-INVALID. Then the INVALID-WRAPPER-P function
+;;; would become trivial and would go away (replaced with
+;;; WRAPPER-INVALID), since all the various invalid wrapper states would
+;;; become generalized boolean "true" values. -- WHN 19991204
#-sb-fluid (declaim (inline wrapper-state (setf wrapper-state)))
(defun wrapper-state (wrapper)
(let ((invalid (sb-kernel:layout-invalid wrapper)))
(setf (sb-kernel:layout-invalid wrapper)
(if (eq new-value t)
nil
- new-value)))
+ new-value)))
(defmacro wrapper-instance-slots-layout (wrapper)
`(%wrapper-instance-slots-layout ,wrapper))
(aver layout)
layout))))
-;;; FIXME: The immediately following macros could become inline functions.
-
-(defmacro first-wrapper-cache-number-index ()
- 0)
+(defconstant +first-wrapper-cache-number-index+ 0)
-(defmacro next-wrapper-cache-number-index (field-number)
- `(and (< ,field-number #.(1- wrapper-cache-number-vector-length))
- (1+ ,field-number)))
+(declaim (inline next-wrapper-cache-number-index))
+(defun next-wrapper-cache-number-index (field-number)
+ (and (< field-number #.(1- wrapper-cache-number-vector-length))
+ (1+ field-number)))
+;;; FIXME: Why are there two layers here, with one operator trivially
+;;; defined in terms of the other? It'd be nice either to have a
+;;; comment explaining why the separation is valuable, or to collapse
+;;; it into a single layer.
+;;;
+;;; FIXME (?): These are logically inline functions, but they need to
+;;; be SETFable, and for now it seems not worth the trouble to DEFUN
+;;; both inline FOO and inline (SETF FOO) for each one instead of a
+;;; single macro. Perhaps the best thing would be to make them
+;;; immutable (since it seems sort of surprising and gross to be able
+;;; to modify hash values) so that they can become inline functions
+;;; with no muss or fuss. I (WHN) didn't do this only because I didn't
+;;; know whether any code anywhere depends on the values being
+;;; modified.
(defmacro cache-number-vector-ref (cnv n)
`(wrapper-cache-number-vector-ref ,cnv ,n))
-
(defmacro wrapper-cache-number-vector-ref (wrapper n)
`(sb-kernel:layout-clos-hash ,wrapper ,n))
-(defmacro class-no-of-instance-slots (class)
- `(wrapper-no-of-instance-slots (class-wrapper ,class)))
-
-(defmacro wrapper-class* (wrapper)
- `(let ((wrapper ,wrapper))
- (or (wrapper-class wrapper)
- (find-structure-class
- (cl:class-name (sb-kernel:layout-class wrapper))))))
+(declaim (inline wrapper-class*))
+(defun wrapper-class* (wrapper)
+ (or (wrapper-class wrapper)
+ (find-structure-class
+ (cl:class-name (sb-kernel:layout-class wrapper)))))
;;; The wrapper cache machinery provides general mechanism for
;;; trapping on the next access to any instance of a given class. This
;;; SLOT-VALUE-USING-CLASS check the wrapper validity as well. This is
;;; done by calling CHECK-WRAPPER-VALIDITY.
-;;; FIXME: could become inline function
-(defmacro invalid-wrapper-p (wrapper)
- `(neq (wrapper-state ,wrapper) t))
+(declaim (inline invalid-wrapper-p))
+(defun invalid-wrapper-p (wrapper)
+ (neq (wrapper-state wrapper) t))
(defvar *previous-nwrappers* (make-hash-table))
(gethash nwrapper *previous-nwrappers*) new-previous)))))
(defun check-wrapper-validity (instance)
- (let* ((owrapper (wrapper-of instance))
- (state (wrapper-state owrapper)))
- (if (eq state t)
+ (let* ((owrapper (wrapper-of instance)))
+ (if (not (invalid-wrapper-p owrapper))
owrapper
- (let ((nwrapper
+ (let* ((state (wrapper-state owrapper))
+ (nwrapper
(ecase (car state)
(:flush
- (flush-cache-trap owrapper (cadr state) instance))
+ (flush-cache-trap owrapper (cadr state) instance))
(:obsolete
- (obsolete-instance-trap owrapper (cadr state) instance)))))
+ (obsolete-instance-trap owrapper (cadr state) instance)))))
;; This little bit of error checking is superfluous. It only
;; checks to see whether the person who implemented the trap
;; handling screwed up. Since that person is hacking
((invalid-wrapper-p nwrapper)
(error "wrapper returned from trap invalid")))
nwrapper))))
-
-(defmacro check-wrapper-validity1 (object)
- (let ((owrapper (gensym)))
- `(let ((,owrapper (sb-kernel:layout-of object)))
- (if (sb-kernel:layout-invalid ,owrapper)
- (check-wrapper-validity ,object)
- ,owrapper))))
\f
(defvar *free-caches* nil)
(setf (cache-nkeys cache) nkeys
(cache-valuep cache) valuep
(cache-nlines cache) nlines
- (cache-field cache) (first-wrapper-cache-number-index)
+ (cache-field cache) +first-wrapper-cache-number-index+
(cache-limit-fn cache) limit-fn
(cache-mask cache) cache-mask
(cache-size cache) actual-size
cache)))
(defun get-cache-from-cache (old-cache new-nlines
- &optional (new-field (first-wrapper-cache-number-index)))
+ &optional (new-field +first-wrapper-cache-number-index+))
(let ((nkeys (cache-nkeys old-cache))
(valuep (cache-valuep old-cache))
(cache (or (sb-sys:without-interrupts (pop *free-caches*))
`(function-funcall ,fn-variable ,@required))))
(defun make-dfun-arg-list (metatypes applyp)
- (let ((required
- (let ((required nil))
- (dotimes (i (length metatypes))
- (push (dfun-arg-symbol i) required))
- (nreverse required))))
+ (let ((required (let ((reversed-required nil))
+ (dotimes (i (length metatypes))
+ (push (dfun-arg-symbol i) reversed-required))
+ (nreverse reversed-required))))
(if applyp
`(list* ,@required .dfun-rest-arg.)
`(list ,@required))))
(defun make-fast-method-call-lambda-list (metatypes applyp)
- (let ((lambda-list nil))
- (push '.pv-cell. lambda-list)
- (push '.next-method-call. lambda-list)
+ (let ((reversed-lambda-list nil))
+ (push '.pv-cell. reversed-lambda-list)
+ (push '.next-method-call. reversed-lambda-list)
(dotimes (i (length metatypes))
- (push (dfun-arg-symbol i) lambda-list))
+ (push (dfun-arg-symbol i) reversed-lambda-list))
(when applyp
- (push '.dfun-rest-arg. lambda-list))
- (nreverse lambda-list)))
-
+ (push '.dfun-rest-arg. reversed-lambda-list))
+ (nreverse reversed-lambda-list)))
\f
;;;; a comment from some PCL implementor:
;;;; Its too bad Common Lisp compilers freak out when you have a
;;; KLUDGE: Isn't something very similar going on in precom1.lisp? Do
;;; we need it both here and there? Why? -- WHN 19991203
(eval-when (:load-toplevel)
- (dolist (n-size '((1 513)(3 257)(3 129)(14 128)(6 65)(2 64)(7 33)(16 32)
- (16 17)(32 16)(64 9)(64 8)(6 5)(128 4)(35 2)))
+ (dolist (n-size '((1 513) (3 257) (3 129) (14 128) (6 65)
+ (2 64) (7 33) (16 32) (16 17) (32 16)
+ (64 9) (64 8) (6 5) (128 4) (35 2)))
(let ((n (car n-size))
(size (cadr n-size)))
(mapcar #'free-cache-vector
(mapcar #'get-cache-vector
(make-list n :initial-element size))))))
-
-(defun caches-to-allocate ()
- (sort (let ((l nil))
- (maphash (lambda (size entry)
- (push (list (car entry) size) l))
- sb-pcl::*free-caches*)
- l)
- #'>
- :key #'cadr))
projects / sbcl.git / blobdiff