bug#64646: Master: Native compiler doesn't always compile lambda forms.

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Andrea.

This bug doesn't seem to be moving, so ....

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 10:57:01 -0400, Andrea Corallo wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

> > Hello, Andrea.

> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:17:13 -0400, Andrea Corallo wrote:
> >> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

> >> > In the master branch:

> >> > (i) emacs -Q
> >> > (ii) C-x b foo.el <RET>
> >> > (iii) Insert into foo.el:
> >> >     ;; -*- lexical-binding:t -*-
> >> > (iv) M-x emacs-lisp-mode
> >> > (v) Insert into foo.el:
> >> >     (defun foo () "foo doc string"
> >> >       (lambda (bar) "lambda doc string" (car bar)))
> >> > (vi) With point after the function, C-x C-e to evaluate it.

> >> > (vii) M-: (native-compile 'foo)
> >> > This returns #<subr foo>
> >> > (viii) M-: (foo)
> >> > This returns the lambda form as a byte-compiled function.  This is a bug:
> >> > it should return the lambda form as a native-compiled function.

> >> > Note: this bug is also in the emacs-29 branch.

> >> Hi Alan,

> >> I can reproduce, (native-compile 'foo) compiles only foo, compiling the
> >> whole compilation unit with eg `emacs-lisp-native-compile-and-load'
> >> compiles as expected also the inner lambda.

> > Why would compiling a .el file compile inner lambda forms, but
> > native-compile doesn't?

> >> I'm not 100% convinced this behaviour is a bug tho.

> > I don't understand that.  Why might it be incorrect to compile that inner
> > lambda natively?

> Hi Alan,

> I'm not saying it would be incorrect.  I'm suggesting that if is not
> specified what's the expected behaviour of compiling by name the outer
> lambda it might not be a bug.

> When we compile a whole compilation unit we indeed have to compile all
> functions, in this case what we promised is I think not defined.

I still don't understand that.  The doc string for native-compile says:

    Compile FUNCTION-OR-FILE into native code.

..  I can't see any reason not also to compile inner lambda functions
natively.

Anyhow, to fix this bug (if such it be) is easy:


diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/comp.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/comp.el
index 181e5ca96a1..2360fbaa494 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/comp.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/comp.el
@@ -1359,7 +1359,12 @@ comp-add-func-to-ctxt
               (comp-ctxt-top-level-forms comp-ctxt)
               (list (make-byte-to-native-func-def :name function-name
                                                   :c-name c-name)))
-        (comp-add-func-to-ctxt func))))
+        (comp-add-func-to-ctxt func))
+      ;; Handle any lambda functions in BYTE-CODE.
+      (maphash (lambda (key val)
+                 (unless (eq key (aref byte-code 1))
+                   (comp-intern-func-in-ctxt key val)))
+               byte-to-native-lambdas-h)))

 (cl-defmethod comp-spill-lap-function ((form list))
   "Byte-compile FORM, spilling data from the byte compiler."


What do you say?

Incidentally, the code in the various comp-spill-lap-function methods
together with comp-intern-func-in-ctxt appears to have some code
duplication.  Would it be possible to have the symbol and list methods of
comp-spill-lap-function simply call comp-intern-func-in-ctxt the way the
string method does?  That would simplify those two methods quite a bit.

>   Andrea

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).