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

[David Kastrup]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> 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?

It made a considerable measurable difference in LilyPond to use scm_eq
over scm_eqv when one variable was known to be a symbol and most
comparisons would have turned out false.

>
>>> 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?

That "all the checks" amount to quite a bit when the whole point of a
symbol is being faster to compare than structured types?  The main
surprise for me was that a symbol is a non-immediate type even though on
second thought it is clear that the symbol name has to be stored
somewhere associated with the symbol value.  However, from the
performance semantics a symbol should not be markedly different from
immediate types to avoid violating reasonable user expectations about
the Scheme type system: their whole point is to be fast to compare, and
fast comparisons are particularly important where you go through a large
number of them (which usually implies that most comparisons will end up
false).  This is particularly important when both arguments are symbols.

The normal expectation of functions like assv would be that they would
be only marginally slower than assq when the search key is a symbol (and
particularly so if most key/value pairs have a symbol key).  Because the
outcome for eqv(symbol1, symbol2)->#f takes quite longer than the
outcome for eq(symbol1, symbol2)->#f, this expectation is not met.

-- 
David Kastrup