X-Git-Url: http://repo.macrolet.net/gitweb/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=src%2Fcompiler%2Fir1opt.lisp;h=5626039e676f49e7a499a1c1e3c752137ff12c32;hb=2e91e29892268b2c7e5ab557e8192fa03bce68f2;hp=66df6378c3938719298bfb036365dbf044dd7384;hpb=d323b0249b9b1e4a91ddf8716ac9185cd268d973;p=sbcl.git diff --git a/src/compiler/ir1opt.lisp b/src/compiler/ir1opt.lisp index 66df637..5626039 100644 --- a/src/compiler/ir1opt.lisp +++ b/src/compiler/ir1opt.lisp @@ -239,15 +239,27 @@ (do-blocks (block component) (cond ((or (block-delete-p block) - (null (block-pred block)) - (eq (functional-kind (block-home-lambda block)) :deleted)) + (null (block-pred block))) (delete-block block)) + ((eq (functional-kind (block-home-lambda block)) :deleted) + ;; Preserve the BLOCK-SUCC invariant that almost every block has + ;; one successor (and a block with DELETE-P set is an acceptable + ;; exception). + (labels ((mark-blocks (block) + (dolist (pred (block-pred block)) + (when (and (not (block-delete-p pred)) + (eq (functional-kind (block-home-lambda pred)) + :deleted)) + (setf (block-delete-p pred) t) + (mark-blocks pred))))) + (mark-blocks block) + (delete-block block))) (t (loop (let ((succ (block-succ block))) (unless (and succ (null (rest succ))) (return))) - + (let ((last (block-last block))) (typecase last (cif @@ -257,8 +269,8 @@ (exit (when (maybe-delete-exit last) (return))))) - - (unless (join-successor-if-possible block) + + (unless (join-successor-if-possible block) (return))) (when (and (block-reoptimize block) (block-component block)) @@ -1125,7 +1137,42 @@ (let ((args (mapcar #'continuation-value (combination-args call))) (fun-name (combination-fun-source-name call))) (multiple-value-bind (values win) - (careful-call fun-name args call "constant folding") + (careful-call fun-name + args + call + ;; Note: CMU CL had COMPILER-WARN here, and that + ;; seems more natural, but it's probably not. + ;; + ;; It's especially not while bug 173 exists: + ;; Expressions like + ;; (COND (END + ;; (UNLESS (OR UNSAFE? (<= END SIZE))) + ;; ...)) + ;; can cause constant-folding TYPE-ERRORs (in + ;; #'<=) when END can be proved to be NIL, even + ;; though the code is perfectly legal and safe + ;; because a NIL value of END means that the + ;; #'<= will never be executed. + ;; + ;; Moreover, even without bug 173, + ;; quite-possibly-valid code like + ;; (COND ((NONINLINED-PREDICATE END) + ;; (UNLESS (<= END SIZE)) + ;; ...)) + ;; (where NONINLINED-PREDICATE is something the + ;; compiler can't do at compile time, but which + ;; turns out to make the #'<= expression + ;; unreachable when END=NIL) could cause errors + ;; when the compiler tries to constant-fold (<= + ;; END SIZE). + ;; + ;; So, with or without bug 173, it'd be + ;; unnecessarily evil to do a full + ;; COMPILER-WARNING (and thus return FAILURE-P=T + ;; from COMPILE-FILE) for legal code, so we we + ;; use a wimpier COMPILE-STYLE-WARNING instead. + #'compiler-style-warn + "constant folding") (if (not win) (setf (combination-kind call) :error) (let ((dummies (make-gensym-list (length args))))