From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Federico Tedin <federicotedin@gmail.com>
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Patch to remove a bit of duplicated code in eval.c
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 10:29:35 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <83k0jf8xsw.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87h7ekxkb1.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Federico Tedin on Thu, 16 Sep 2021 23:49:38 +0200)
> From: Federico Tedin <federicotedin@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 23:49:38 +0200
>
> Reading eval.c I realized that there is very similar code in both
> 'eval_sub' and 'funcall_subr', where they invoke the subroutine itself.
>
> I figured, since we have 'apply_lambda' (that gets called from
> 'eval_sub'), why not have an 'apply_subr' as well, to be used for
> subroutines? So I wrote a small patch (WIP) that adds 'apply_subr',
> which in turn calls 'funcall_subr'. I had to adapt 'funcall_subr' so
> that it accepts 'max_args=UNEVALLED' subroutines.
>
> I think the advantages of doing this are that 1) it should make making
> changes to the structure of subroutines slightly easier (less code to
> update!) and 2) makes 'eval_sub' much more readable. In fact, now the
> function-calling part of 'eval_sub' is relatively short (~45 lines),
> which makes understanding the general structure of the function much
> easier in my opinion.
Thanks for working on this.
> My concerns now are:
> 1) Could I have broken anything without realizing it, since this is such
> a central function in Lisp code evaluation? Everything seems to be
> compiling fine (without warnings) and so far I haven't had any crashes.
I tried to compare the old and the new code, and their differences are
not trivial to audit. For example, you remove this part:
> - else if (XSUBR (fun)->max_args == UNEVALLED)
> - val = (XSUBR (fun)->function.aUNEVALLED) (args_left);
but I don't immediately see how you have something equivalent and at
the right opportunity in the new code.
I'm not saying I already see something you have broken, I'm saying
these changes are not easy to audit for correctness, at least not for
me. They are not a mechanical move of code from one place to another,
they really change the flow of control and processing.
So I think we'd like to have tests for each of the cases supported by
the code to make sure nothing is broken. Is it feasible to write such
tests?
> 2) I removed a comment that made reference to Bug#21245, but it seems
> like it makes sense since the variable it refers to is no longer needed.
If the reason for the comment is gone, no need to keep the comment.
> 3) Have I maybe made Emacs slower by always using SAFE_ALLOCA_LISP for
> the subroutine arguments (instead of only for 'max_args=MANY')?
This should be measured.
In any case, let's delay installing this patch until after the
emacs-28 release branch is cut, so as not to destabilize Emacs 28
unnecessarily.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-17 7:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-16 21:49 Patch to remove a bit of duplicated code in eval.c Federico Tedin
2021-09-17 7:29 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2021-09-17 20:08 ` Federico Tedin
2021-09-17 17:11 ` Stefan Monnier
2021-09-17 20:27 ` Federico Tedin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=83k0jf8xsw.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=emacs-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=federicotedin@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).