This change permits EH patterns like (~once <nullable>), because the
match will happen at most once, so there is no danger of divergence.
Thanks to Alex Knauth for pointing out this special case.
Merge to release branch.
In (~and p1 p2), a failure in p2 now always dominates a failure in p1.
Consequently, if a pattern succeeds, its failures don't matter.
Add {pat,hpat,action}:ord wrappers, ord prframes. Apply ordering to
main pattern and side clauses. Add better progress analysis to
eliminate order wrapping.
Avoid creating a result that is intended as a module path but
has elements that are not syntactically allowed, such as a "."
in a collection-path element.
This is a partial solution to the ~and problem, only for side clauses.
In (~and p1 p2 p3), one often wants errors in p2 to take precedence over
errors in p1, and likewise for p3 over p2. One solution is ~commit, but
that prevents backtracking. Another is ~post, but then two ~post wrappers
are needed around p3. Also, it doesn't make sense to compare progress of
the third #:with clause from stxclass A to the second #:with clause of
stxclass B and say third beats second.
So, generalize 'post to (post group index); post frames are comparable to
each other only if group is the same, then compared by index. (Post still
beats CAR and CDR.) Each set of side clauses shares a group.
For simplicity of code generation for now, use gensyms to identify groups.
`->i` already supports method contracts (for use wihin `object-contract`,
whose `->i` support is tested, but undocumented), which would make `->im`
possible.
Unfortunately, that support is very incomplete, missing support for using
`this` in contracts, making this `->im` (or the undocumented `->i` +
`object-contract` combo) basically useless.
Once/if that is added, then this commit would enable `->im`. Until then,
it's mostly useful for future reference (hence will be reverted).
In the meantime, it's possible to use `->i` within class/object contracts
with an explicit `this` argument, so nothing critical is lost, just a tiny
shortcut.
Some functions were passing when they shouldn't have, only to fail when
the function is called.
Technically not backwards compatible, but should only affect functions
that were never called.
Correct the second-biggest design flaw in the bytecode optimizer:
instead of using a de Bruijn-like representation of variable
references in the optimizer pass, use variable objects.
This change is intended to address limitations on programs like the
one in
http://bugs.racket-lang.org/query/?cmd=view&pr=15244
where the optimizer could not perform a straightforward-seeming
transformation due to the constraints of its representation.
Besides handling the bug-report example better, there are other minor
optimization improvements as a side effect of refactoring the code. To
simplify the optimizer's implementation (e.g., eliminate code that I
didn't want to convert) and also preserve success for optimizer tests,
the optimizer ended up getting a little better at flattening and
eliminating `let` forms and `begin`--`let` combinations.
Overall, the optimizer tests in "optimize.rktl" pass, which helps
ensure that no optimizations were lost. I had to modify just a few
tests:
* The test at line 2139 didn't actually check against reordering as
intended, but was instead checking that the bug-report limitation
was intact (and now it's not).
* The tests around 3095 got extra `p` references, because the
optimizer is now able to eliminate an unused `let` around the
second case, but it still doesn't discover the unusedness of `p` in
the first case soon enough to eliminate the `let`. The extra
references prevent eliminating the `let` in both case, since that's
not the point of the tests.
Thanks to Gustavo for taking a close look at the changes.
LocalWords: pkgs rkt
Skip calling the domain projection in that case and, if all of the
arguments are any/c then also skip putting the contract continuation mark
This appears to give about a 20% speed up on this program:
#lang racket/base
(require racket/contract/base)
(define f
(contract
(-> any/c integer?)
(λ (x) 1)
'pos 'neg))
(time
(for ([x (in-range 4000000)])
(f 1)))
In particular, instead of going directly back to the chaperone, handle
the case where the function doesn't accept keyword arguments with a
less expensive fallback.
The less expensive fallback uses a case-lambda wrapper (wrapped inside
a make-keyword-procedure) to close over the neg-party and avoid the
chaperone creation. With this commit, the program below gets about 3x
faster, and is only about 20% slower than the version that replaces
the "(let ([f f]) ...)" with its body
#lang racket/base
(module m racket/base
(require racket/contract/base)
(provide (contract-out [f (-> integer? integer?)]))
(define (f x) x))
(require 'm)
(collect-garbage)
(time (for ([x (in-range 5000000)]) (let ([f f]) (f 1))))
Thanks, @samth!
Made the hash-set chaperones essentially forward the hash chaperone
operations, but now explain them all in terms of set-based operations
in the docs.
Also adjusted value-blame and has-blame? to support late-neg projections
The issue is what happens when the actual function has other arities.
For example, if the function were (λ (x [y 1]) y) then it is not okay
to simply check if procedure-arity-includes? of 1 is true (what the
code used to do) because then when the function is applied to 2
arguments, the call won't fail like it should. It is possible to check
and reject functions that don't have exactly the right arity, but if
the contract were (-> string? any), then the function would have been
allowed and only when the extra argument is supplied would the error
occur. So, this commit makes it so that (-> any/c any) is like
(-> string? any), but with the optimization that if the procedure
accepts only one argument, then no wrapper is created.
This is a backwards incompatible change because it used to be the
case that (flat-contract? (-> any)) returned #t and it now returns #f.
Also, add `#:skip-filtered-directory?` to `find-files`.
Less significantly, adjust `pathlist-closure` to be consistent in the
way that it includes a separator at the end of a directory path.
- use chaperone-hash-set for set/c when the contract allows only hash-sets
- add a #:lazy flag to allow explicit choice of when to use laziness
(but have a backwards-compatible default that, roughly, eschews laziness
only when the resulting contract would be flat)
Specifically, remove reliance on procedure-closure-contents-eq? to
tell when a pending check is stronger in favor of usint
contract-stronger?
Also, tighten up the specification of contract-stronger? to require
that any contract is stronger than itself
With this commit, this program gets about 10% slower:
#lang racket/base
(require racket/contract/base)
(define f
(contract
(-> any/c integer?)
(λ (x) (if (zero? x)
0
(f (- x 1))))
'pos 'neg))
(time (f 2000000))
becuase the checking is doing work more explicitly now but because the
checking in more general, it identifies the redundant checking in this
program
#lang racket/base
(require racket/contract/base)
(define f
(contract
(-> any/c integer?)
(contract
(-> any/c integer?)
(λ (x) (if (zero? x)
0
(f (- x 1))))
'pos 'neg)
'pos 'neg))
(time (f 200000))
which makes it run about 13x faster than it did before
I'm not sure if this is a win overall, since the checking can be more
significant in the case of "near misses". For example, with this
program, where neither the new nor the old checking detects the
redundancy is about 40% slower after this commit than it was before:
#lang racket/base
(require racket/contract/base)
(define f
(contract
(-> any/c (<=/c 0))
(contract
(-> any/c (>=/c 0))
(λ (x) (if (zero? x)
0
(f (- x 1))))
'pos 'neg)
'pos 'neg))
(time (f 50000))
(The redundancy isn't detected here because the contract system only
looks at the first pending contract check.)
Overall, despite the fact that it slows down some programs and speeds
up others, my main thought is that it is worth doing because it
eliminates a (painful) reliance on procedure-closure-contents-eq? that
inhibits other approaches to optimizing these contracts we might try.
in particular, when there is a recursive contract, then we check only
some part of the first-order checks and see if that was enough to
distinguish the branches. if it was, we don't continue and otherwise we do
