--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Compiling several files in the same session [2.0.9] |
|
Date: |
Sun, 13 Oct 2013 15:51:12 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.130007 (Ma Gnus v0.7) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) |
Consider these three modules:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define-module (one)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-9)
#:export (run-time
expansion-time))
(define run-time 'one)
(define-syntax expansion-time
(identifier-syntax 'one))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
two.scm:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define-module (two)
#:use-module (one)
#:export (bar))
(define bar
(list run-time))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
and three.scm:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define-module (three)
#:use-module (two))
(define chbouib
bar)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
And now see how the order influences the compilation result:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guile --no-auto-compile -L . -c '(use-modules (system base compile))
(for-each compile-file (list "one.scm" "two.scm" "three.scm"))'
$ guile --no-auto-compile -L . -c '(use-modules (system base compile))
(for-each compile-file (list "three.scm" "two.scm" "one.scm"))'
$ guile --no-auto-compile -L . -c '(use-modules (system base compile))
(for-each compile-file (list "one.scm" "three.scm" "two.scm"))'
Backtrace:
In system/base/compile.scm:
153: 19 [#<procedure 1985040 at system/base/compile.scm:151:8 (port)>
#<closed: file 0>]
216: 18 [read-and-compile #<input: three.scm 5> #:from ...]
232: 17 [lp () #f #<module (#{ g180}#) 189aa20>]
180: 16 [lp (#<procedure compile-tree-il (x e opts)>) (define-module # # ...)
...]
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
2325: 15 [save-module-excursion #<procedure 19a84e0 at
language/scheme/compile-tree-il.scm:29:3 ()>]
In language/scheme/compile-tree-il.scm:
31: 14 [#<procedure 19a84e0 at language/scheme/compile-tree-il.scm:29:3 ()>]
In ice-9/psyntax.scm:
1091: 13 [expand-top-sequence ((define-module (three) #:use-module ...)) () ...]
976: 12 [scan ((define-module (three) #:use-module ...)) () ...]
270: 11 [scan ((#(syntax-object let # ...) (#) (# #) ...)) () ...]
In ice-9/eval.scm:
411: 10 [eval # ()]
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
2875: 9 [define-module* (three) #:filename ...]
2850: 8 [resolve-imports (((two)))]
2788: 7 [resolve-interface (two) #:select ...]
2713: 6 [#<procedure 15381e0 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:2701:4 (name #:optional
autoload version #:key ensure)> # ...]
2986: 5 [try-module-autoload (two) #f]
2325: 4 [save-module-excursion #<procedure 17a3360 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:2987:17
()>]
3006: 3 [#<procedure 17a3360 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:2987:17 ()>]
In unknown file:
?: 2 [primitive-load-path "two" ...]
In two.scm:
1: 1 [#<procedure 1714940 ()>]
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
106: 0 [#<procedure 19b0f80 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:97:6 (thrown-k . args)>
misc-error ...]
ice-9/boot-9.scm:106:20: In procedure #<procedure 19b0f80 at
ice-9/boot-9.scm:97:6 (thrown-k . args)>:
ice-9/boot-9.scm:106:20: In procedure #<procedure 1714940 ()>: Unbound
variable: run-time
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
So, what happened?
In the last case (one, three, two), the compiler:
1. compiles ‘one.scm’, which creates module (one) in the global name
space with just ‘expansion-time’ in its exported bindings;
2. when compiling ‘three.scm’, it loads ‘two.scm’; since (two) uses
(one), it does ‘(resolve-module '(one))’, and since (one) already
exists it is used;
however, the (one) we have comes from step 1, and lacks the
‘run-time’ binding, hence the unbound variable failure.
I think the right thing would be to use a separate module hierarchy in
the dynamic extent of ‘compile-file’, somehow, such that all module side
effects are isolated.
Of course the above can be worked around by running ‘compile-file’ in a
child process, but forking alone is more expensive than ‘compile-file’,
so that’s not really a solution when there are many files.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: bug#15602: Compiling several files in the same session [2.0.9] |
|
Date: |
Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:22:04 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) |
Hi,
On Sun 13 Oct 2013 15:51, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> $ guile --no-auto-compile -L . -c '(use-modules (system base compile))
> (for-each compile-file (list "one.scm" "two.scm" "three.scm"))'
>
> $ guile --no-auto-compile -L . -c '(use-modules (system base compile))
> (for-each compile-file (list "three.scm" "two.scm" "one.scm"))'
>
> $ guile --no-auto-compile -L . -c '(use-modules (system base compile))
> (for-each compile-file (list "one.scm" "three.scm" "two.scm"))'
> Backtrace:
I understand this is now fixed in Guix. You can of course do this
for-each compile-file thing, but if modules use each other you need to
topologically sort in order to make the run-time bindings visible. Or,
as Taylan notes, just load after compiling.
> I think the right thing would be to use a separate module hierarchy in
> the dynamic extent of ‘compile-file’, somehow, such that all module side
> effects are isolated.
I don't think this is going to happen, for what that's worth :/
> Of course the above can be worked around by running ‘compile-file’ in a
> child process, but forking alone is more expensive than ‘compile-file’,
> so that’s not really a solution when there are many files.
It's the N^2 expansion that's the problem, not the forking. If you have
N files which depend on each other, then compiling each one will require
the expansion of approximately all N files, so N*N costs in number of
files. Or N log N if you have a tree ordering of your files. Anyway
it's badness.
Glad to know that Taylan has fixed this one in Guix. However I'm not
sure that there's more to do on Guile's side though. Closing; please
re-open or file a new bug if you think there is something Guile should
do.
Andy
--- End Message ---