bug#71934: comp--spill-lap-function and closure (wad: bug#71934: 31.0.50; edebug--called-interactively-skip vs. new fun objects)

[Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>]

Hello, Stefan.

On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 14:17:38 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Not sure what you mean by "no such thing as a form ... like a closure".

> A form that starts with `closure` is not a valid form because there is
> no definition for `closure`: (fboundp 'closure) => nil.

> > I bumped into one last summer.

> > In particular (in my development repo fixing bug #64646) I put this into
> > *scratch*:

> >     (defconst foo (lambda (baz) (car baz)))

> > , evaluated it with C-x C-e and then M-: (native-compile foo).  This
> > threw the error "Cannot native-compile, form is not a lambda".

> That error seems right according to the docstring:

>    (defun native-compile (function-or-file &optional output)
>      "Compile FUNCTION-OR-FILE into native code.
>    This is the synchronous entry-point for the Emacs Lisp native
>    compiler.  FUNCTION-OR-FILE is a function symbol, a form, or the
>    filename of an Emacs Lisp source file.  If OUTPUT is non-nil, use
>    it as the filename for the compiled object.  If FUNCTION-OR-FILE
>    is a filename, if the compilation was successful return the
>    filename of the compiled object.  If FUNCTION-OR-FILE is a
>    function symbol or a form, if the compilation was successful
>    return the compiled function."

> (closure ...) is not a function symbol nor a valid form.  Instead it's
> a function value and the docstring doesn't say such are
> a valid arguments to `native-compile`.

All very clever arguments, no doubt, but in the end it means you cannot
native compile foo.  I've just tried it on emacs-30, and it doesn't work.
But you could compile foo last summer after my fixes for bug #64646.
Between last summer and now, something has gone badly wrong in Emacs's
basic mechanisms.

> Admittedly, maybe we should extend `native-compile` to accept function
> values, just like `byte-compile`.

Or something like that, yes.  But if logical combinations of terms like
"form", "closure", "function value", "valid form" lead to not being able
to compile foo, then I suggest that these terms and their applicability
might need to be thought through somewhat.

[ .... ]

> > So I fixed
> > comp--spill-lap-function (form version) so as to compile that form.

> Why `comp--spill-lap-function` specifically (instead of
> `native-compile`, for example)?

I fixed what was wrong at the time.

> > I've no idea how Emacs would handle that defconst now.

> Hmm... AFAICT your example doesn't relate to `defconst`.
> You'd get the same result with

>     M-: (native-compile (lambda (baz) (car baz))) RET

Whatever.  foo doesn't compile; that should be fixed.

> - Stefan

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).