Opened 5 years ago
Closed 5 years ago
#1624 closed defect (fixed)
Flonum unboxing too agressive
Reported by: | sjamaan | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | critical | Milestone: | 5.2 |
Component: | compiler | Version: | 5.1.0 |
Keywords: | lfa2 | Cc: | |
Estimated difficulty: | medium |
Description (last modified by )
Found by Sven Hartrumpf. The following program will segfault:
(define (test-it) (let loop ((done #f)) (if done '() (cons (or (read) 0.0) (loop #t))))) (print (test-it))
When run with a DEBUGBUILD
CHICKEN, you'll see it fails with a nice panic due to a low-level assertion error triggered by a C_flonum_magnitude
call when you enter a fixnum:
[panic] Low-level type assertion C_blockp((C_word)C_VAL1(C__PREV_TMPST.n1))=#t failed at test.c:176 - execution terminated
Generated code failing:
/* k150 in loop in test-it in k131 in k128 in k125 */ static void C_ccall f_152(C_word c,C_word *av){ C_word tmp; C_word t0=av[0]; C_word t1=av[1]; C_word t2; C_word t3; C_word t4; double f0; C_word *a; C_check_for_interrupt; if(C_unlikely(!C_demand(C_calculate_demand(8,c,2)))){ C_save_and_reclaim((void *)f_152,2,av);} a=C_alloc(8); f0=C_flonum_magnitude((C_truep(t1)?t1:lf[1])); /// <--- offending code t2=C_flonum(&a,f0); t3=(*a=C_CLOSURE_TYPE|3,a[1]=(C_word)f_159,a[2]=((C_word*)t0)[2],a[3]=t2,tmp=(C_word)a,a+=4,tmp); C_trace(C_text("test.scm:5: loop")); t4=((C_word*)((C_word*)t0)[3])[1]; f_141(t4,t3,C_SCHEME_TRUE);}
Most likely introduced by 79cf7427638eebf695f2be54731bb6bbf4d0fff2.
ALSO: In the generated code in this case, it unboxes and immediately boxes the flonum. There's no operation in between, so that's wasteful.
It only makes sense with >1 operations (though with exactly 1 it should be okay too but adds no perf improvement)
Change History (4)
comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by
Estimated difficulty: | hard → medium |
---|
comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by
AFAICT, the transformation in this pass doesn't create redundant boxing. I think, in this particular example the pointless boxing/unboxing is an artifact of the completely wrong type computed by walking the conditional.
comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
Fixed by 9413c4bf1b4b0c95e60ba12e082f4e03b4c0f8ef
The offending code seems to be lfa2.scm:349, the rule for walking
if
/##core#cond
nodes. The result type is always taken from the 2nd branch, but should instead be the union of the result types of both branches.