[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CPS mystery
From: |
Mark H Weaver |
Subject: |
Re: CPS mystery |
Date: |
Tue, 29 May 2018 13:54:18 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Matt,
Matt Wette <address@hidden> writes:
> I'm trying to generate CPS to feed to the compiler tower.
> The following program is supposed to evaluate, expressed in Scheme, `(+ 1 2)'.
> That is, essentially,
> scheme@(guile-user)> (apply + '(1 2))
> $1 = 3
> I get the error message following. Any clues what is going on?
>
> (0 . #<cps (kfun () 0 1 9)>)
> (1 . #<cps (ktail)>)
> (2 . #<cps (kargs (rval) (1) (continue 1 (values 1)))>)
> (3 . #<cps (kargs (arg) (4) (continue 2 (call 2 3 4)))>)
> (4 . #<cps (kargs (arg) (3) (continue 3 (const 2)))>)
> (5 . #<cps (kargs (arg) (2) (continue 4 (const 1)))>)
> (6 . #<cps (kargs (t) (6) (continue 5 (primcall resolve 5 6)))>)
The problem here is that 'resolve' returns a variable object, but 'call'
expects a procedure. So, you need another continuation between
continuations 6 and 5 above, which does (primcall box-ref <>) to extract
the procedure from the variable object.
Also, I believe the (values 1) in continuation 2 above is incorrect. It
expects its argument to be a list, whereas in this case it would be a
number. It's not needed here.
> And if I fire up Guile and turn off optimization, I get this, where I don't
> even see the + resolved.
> scheme@(guile-user)> (define v (compile '(+ 1 2) #:from 'scheme #:to 'cps))
> scheme@(guile-user)> (disp-cps v)
> (0 . #<cps (kfun () 0 1 4)>)
> (1 . #<cps (ktail)>)
> (2 . #<cps (kargs (val) (1) (continue 1 (values 1)))>)
> (3 . #<cps (kargs () () (continue 2 (const 3)))>)
> (4 . #<cps (kclause (() () #f () #f) 3)>)
'+' is converted into a primitive operation in an early phase of
compilation. For these purposes, it's probably better to choose a
procedure that won't be recognized specially by the compiler.
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
scheme@(guile-user)> ,use (system base compile)
scheme@(guile-user)> (define intmap->alist (@@ (language cps intmap)
intmap->alist))
scheme@(guile-user)> (define v (compile '(floor/ 3 7) #:from 'scheme #:to 'cps))
scheme@(guile-user)> ,pp (intmap->alist v)
$2 = ((0 . #<cps (kfun () 0 1 9)>)
(1 . #<cps (ktail)>)
(2 . #<cps (kargs (arg) (3) (continue 1 (call 1 2 3)))>)
(3 . #<cps (kargs (arg) (2) (continue 2 (const 7)))>)
(4 . #<cps (kargs (arg) (1) (continue 3 (const 3)))>)
(5 . #<cps (kargs (box) (4) (continue 4 (primcall box-ref 4)))>)
(6 . #<cps (kargs (bound?) (6) (continue 5 (primcall resolve 5 6)))>)
(7 . #<cps (kargs (name) (5) (continue 6 (const #t)))>)
(8 . #<cps (kargs () () (continue 7 (const floor/)))>)
(9 . #<cps (kclause (() () #f () #f) 8)>))
scheme@(guile-user)>
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
Admittedly, I manually cleaned up the output of ,pp here. Anyway, see
the 'box-ref' expression above, which was missing from yours, and also
note that in the CPS above, 'call' returns directly to the $ktail,
without an intervening 'values'.
Hope this helps,
Mark
- CPS mystery, Matt Wette, 2018/05/28
- Re: CPS mystery,
Mark H Weaver <=