Merge pull request #538 from justinethier/issue-534-tail-call-fixes

Issue 534 tail call fixes
This commit is contained in:
Justin Ethier 2024-04-24 21:54:55 -04:00 committed by GitHub
commit 6b556d3a7a
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: B5690EEEBB952194
3 changed files with 19 additions and 6 deletions

View file

@ -4,6 +4,10 @@
Bug Fixes Bug Fixes
- Fixed a beta expansion optimization bug where code such as the following would cause the compiler to hang. Thanks to Yorick Hardy for the bug report:
(define (compile-forever x) x (compile-forever x))
- Added a fix from Yorick Hardy to define `*ai-v4mapped*` to zero on platforms where `AI_V4MAPPED` is undefined. - Added a fix from Yorick Hardy to define `*ai-v4mapped*` to zero on platforms where `AI_V4MAPPED` is undefined.
- Updated `sqrt` to properly handle complex results given non-complex input. EG: `(sqrt -1) ==> 1i`. And updated the parser to properly handle `+i` and `-i`. Thanks to Christopher Hebert for the bug reports! - Updated `sqrt` to properly handle complex results given non-complex input. EG: `(sqrt -1) ==> 1i`. And updated the parser to properly handle `+i` and `-i`. Thanks to Christopher Hebert for the bug reports!

View file

@ -7538,6 +7538,8 @@ static int _read_is_numeric(const char *tok, int len)
{ {
return (len && return (len &&
((isdigit(tok[0])) || ((isdigit(tok[0])) ||
(((len == 2) && tok[1] == 'i')
&& (tok[0] == '-' || tok[0] == '+')) ||
((len > 1) && tok[0] == '.' && isdigit(tok[1])) || ((len > 1) && tok[0] == '.' && isdigit(tok[1])) ||
((len > 1) && (tok[1] == '.' || isdigit(tok[1])) ((len > 1) && (tok[1] == '.' || isdigit(tok[1]))
&& (tok[0] == '-' || tok[0] == '+')))); && (tok[0] == '-' || tok[0] == '+'))));

View file

@ -1665,7 +1665,7 @@
;; Full beta expansion phase, make a pass over all of the program's AST ;; Full beta expansion phase, make a pass over all of the program's AST
(define (opt:beta-expand exp) (define (opt:beta-expand exp)
;(write `(DEBUG opt:beta-expand ,exp)) (newline) ;(trace:info `(opt:beta-expand ,exp)) (flush-output-port)
(cond (cond
((ast:lambda? exp) ((ast:lambda? exp)
(ast:%make-lambda (ast:%make-lambda
@ -1694,6 +1694,7 @@
(else exp))) (else exp)))
(define (analyze-cps exp) (define (analyze-cps exp)
;(trace:info `(analyze-cps ,exp))
(analyze:find-named-lets exp) (analyze:find-named-lets exp)
(analyze:find-direct-recursive-calls exp) (analyze:find-direct-recursive-calls exp)
(analyze:find-recursive-calls exp) (analyze:find-recursive-calls exp)
@ -2230,11 +2231,17 @@
(scan (if->then exp) def-sym) (scan (if->then exp) def-sym)
(scan (if->else exp) def-sym)) (scan (if->else exp) def-sym))
((app? exp) ((app? exp)
(when (equal? (car exp) def-sym) ;(trace:info `(analyze:find-recursive-calls scan app ,exp))
(trace:info `("recursive call" ,exp)) (cond
(with-var! def-sym (lambda (var) ((equal? (car exp) def-sym)
(adbv:set-self-rec-call! var #t))) (trace:info `("recursive call" ,exp))
)) (with-var! def-sym (lambda (var)
(adbv:set-self-rec-call! var #t))))
(else
(for-each
(lambda (e)
(scan e def-sym))
exp))))
(else #f))) (else #f)))
;; TODO: probably not good enough, what about recursive functions that are not top-level?? ;; TODO: probably not good enough, what about recursive functions that are not top-level??