CLHS: Issue CONSTANT-CIRCULAR-COMPILATION Writeup

#

## Issue CONSTANT-CIRCULAR-COMPILATION Writeup

    Option YES passed 17-0-1 at meeting of Mar-89.
    -----
    Forum:		Compiler
    Issue:		CONSTANT-CIRCULAR-COMPILATION
    References:	Issue CONSTANT-COLLAPSING
    		Issue QUOTE-SEMANTICS
    Category:	CLARIFICATION, ADDITION
    Edit History:   V1, 07 Nov 1988, Sandra Loosemore
    		V2, 14 Nov 1988, Cris Perdue
    		V3, 12 Dec 1988, Sandra Loosemore (merge versions 1 and 2)
    		V4, 03 Jan 1989, Sandra Loosemore (add PRESERVE-SHARING-ONLY)
    		V5, 06 Jan 1989, Sandra Loosemore (minor wording changes)
    		V6, 08 Feb 1989, Sandra Loosemore (replace FLAG with YES)
                    V7, 11 Mar 1989, Sandra Loosemore (error terminology)
    		V8, 18 Mar 1989, Sandra Loosemore (changes per Moon, Masinter)
    Status:		Ready for release

    Problem Description:

    CLtL does not specify whether constants containing circular or
    recursive references may be compiled.  It is also not clear whether
    the compiler must preserve sharing of EQL substructures; that is, whether
    subobjects that are EQL in the source code must remain EQL after being
    compiled.

    The proposals below apply to constants appearing in a file compiled by
    COMPILE-FILE.  If proposal QUOTE-SEMANTICS:SAME-AS-COMPILE-FILE
    passes, then the same constraints would apply to all constants.  The
    minimal scope over which sharing would be required to be detected is
    over a single call to EVAL or COMPILE.

    In the proposals that follow, "preserving EQLness" means that
    subobjects that are EQL in the source code must remain EQL after being
    compiled; that is, things don't get "less EQL" after compilation.
    (Note that coalescing of constants implies that things may get "more
    EQL".)

    Proposal CONSTANT-CIRCULAR-COMPILATION:NO

    State that conforming programs must not contain circular objects
    appearing as constants to be compiled.  The consequences of compiling
    a program containing such an object with COMPILE-FILE and/or LOADing
    the output produced by COMPILE-FILE for such a program [and, if we
    accept proposal QUOTE-SEMANTICS:SAME-AS-COMPILE-FILE, compiling it
    with COMPILE or evaluating it interpretively] are undefined.

    State that the compiler is not required to preserve EQLness of
    substructures.

      Rationale:

      This proposal would not require any existing implementation to change.

      Disallowing portable programs from containing circular constants
      allows compiled file loaders to use somewhat simpler implementation
      strategies (for example, to build constants in a strict bottom-up
      fashion).

    Proposal CONSTANT-CIRCULAR-COMPILATION:PRESERVE-SHARING-ONLY

    State that conforming programs must not contain circular objects
    appearing as constants to be compiled.  The consequences of compiling
    a program containing such an object with COMPILE-FILE and/or LOADing
    the output produced by COMPILE-FILE for such a program [and, if we
    accept proposal QUOTE-SEMANTICS:SAME-AS-COMPILE-FILE, compiling it
    with COMPILE or evaluating it interpretively] are undefined.

    State that the compiler is required to preserve EQLness of
    substructures within a file compiled with COMPILE-FILE.

      Rationale:

      Disallowing portable programs from containing circular constants
      allows compiled file loaders to use somewhat simpler implementation
      strategies (for example, to build constants in a strict bottom-up
      fashion).

      Some programs (such as PCL) have come to depend on COMPILE-FILE
      preserving the EQLness of uninterned symbols, and it is cleaner
      to require sharing to be preserved in general instead of making
      symbols be a special case.  Requiring sharing to be preserved still
      allows loaders to build constants bottom-up.

    Proposal CONSTANT-CIRCULAR-COMPILATION:YES

    State that objects containing circular references may legitimately
    appear as constants to be compiled.  State that the compiler is
    required to preserve EQLness of substructures within a file compiled
    with COMPILE-FILE.

      Rationale:

      Users seem to expect this functionality, and some implementations
      already provide it.

    Current Practice:

    A-Lisp preserves EQLness of substructures (since it makes an effort to
    collapse isomorphic structures) but signals an error if an attempt is
    made to compile a circular constant.  PSL and Utah Common Lisp both
    get stuck in an infinite loop if an attempt is made to compile a
    reentrant structure.  The TI Explorer compiler is able to reproduce
    recursive lists and arrays, but currently hangs in a loop on a
    circular list.  Neither the Explorer nor Symbolics Genera 7.x detects
    EQLness of list CDRs.  Lucid handles circular constants correctly.
    Franz uses a flag to control whether or not to attempt to detect
    circular constants.  KCL handles circular structures, but only detects
    sharing of top-level structure (it does not traverse constants to look
    for shared substructure).

    Cost to implementors:

    We know of no implementation that would have to change under proposal
    NO.

    For proposal YES, some implementations would require sweeping
    changes; in some cases a completely different dumper/loader strategy
    would have to be implemented.

    The cost of proposal PRESERVE-SHARING-ONLY would fall somewhere in
    between.

    Cost to users:

    The situation now is that programs which depend upon circularity or
    sharing of substructure being preserved by the compiler are already
    nonportable.  Proposal NO simply formalizes the status quo.  Proposal
    YES would offer users functionality that is currently not portable.

    Portable CommonLoops reportedly requires EQLness of uninterned symbols
    to be preserved across a file, and would break under proposal NO.
    According to Cris Perdue:

      I am told that support for PCL requires the kinds of guarantees about
      uninterned symbols [that say EQLness will be preserved].  Jim Kempf
      here at Sun tells me he believes that this is true.  John Foderaro
      said that Franz made their compiler give this behavior in order to
      support PCL.

      Jim Kempf says he believes that certain GENSYMs appear in multiple
      pieces of initialization code across a file in PCL, and the
      initialization code only works if symbols EQ at compile time map to
      symbols that are EQ at load time.

    Benefits:

    An area of ambiguity in the language is removed.

    Discussion:

    The issue of compiler speed is largely a red herring on this issue;
    the overhead of detecting circularities is generally quite small.  The
    main question is whether we should require some implementations to
    completely redo their compiler/loader interface in order to support
    circular constants.

    It has been argued that any "serious" implementation will support
    circular constants anyway, because of customer demand.  However, since
    there appears to be only one implementation (Lucid) that now
    implements proposal YES in its full generality, perhaps the demand for
    this feature is not really all that strong.

    Earlier drafts of this writeup contained a proposal FLAG which would
    have added a variable *COMPILE-CIRCLE*, similar to *PRINT-CIRCLE*.
    However, there were unresolved problems about what would happen if the
    value of this variable were altered within the file being compiled,
    and it was generally agreed that this proposal didn't have any
    particular advantages over proposal YES and just introduced
    unnecessary hairiness.

    Since it is usually fairly simple to detect circular constants,
    Loosemore would support an amendment to proposals NO and
    PRESERVE-SHARING-ONLY to change the word "undefined" to "unspecified",
    adding:

      Implementations must either correctly handle the circular reference
      or signal an error.

    This is similar to the language which is already used in proposal
    CONSTANT-COMPILABLE-TYPES:SPECIFY.

Copyright 1996-2001, Xanalys Inc. All rights reserved.