bug#41354: equal? has no sensible code path for symbols

["Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>]

Hi,

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

[...]

>> Thus we could go with the patch below, though I doubt it would make a
>> measurable difference (and it actually adds tests for other cases).
>
> It made a considerable measurable difference in LilyPond

You measured with and without the patch I sent?  Or something else?

>> diff --git a/libguile/eq.c b/libguile/eq.c
>> index 627d6f09b..16c5bfb3f 100644
>> --- a/libguile/eq.c
>> +++ b/libguile/eq.c
>> @@ -303,6 +303,8 @@ scm_equal_p (SCM x, SCM y)
>>      return SCM_BOOL_F;
>>    if (SCM_IMP (y))
>>      return SCM_BOOL_F;
>> +  if (scm_is_symbol (x) || scm_is_symbol (y))
>> +    return SCM_BOOL_F;
>>    if (scm_is_pair (x) && scm_is_pair (y))
>>      {
>>        if (scm_is_false (scm_equal_p (SCM_CAR (x), SCM_CAR (y))))
>>
>
> Yes, that looks reasonable.  scm_is_symbol checks some tag subset that
> the code for equal_p later looks at closer as well: if you worry about
> the extra cost of the scm_is_symbol check, one could try folding the
> symbol check into that later code passage, which would slow down the
> symbol check and effect the more costly fallbacks less.  But since those
> fallbacks _are_ more costly, I doubt it would be worth the trouble.

Looking at eq.c, I don’t see what “costly fallbacks” you’re referring
to.  For a symbol, AIUI, we end up here:

  switch (SCM_TYP7 (x))
    {
    default:
      /* Check equality between structs of equal type (see cell-type test above). */
      if (SCM_STRUCTP (x))
	{
	  if (SCM_INSTANCEP (x))
	    goto generic_equal;
	  else
	    return scm_i_struct_equalp (x, y);
	}
      break;   // <- here, meaning we return SCM_BOOL_F

All the checks leading to this line are type tag comparisons.

Am I overlooking something?

Thanks,
Ludo’.