sbcl.sbcl/doc/compiler.sgml

<chapter id="compiler"><title>The Compiler</>

<para>This chapter will discuss most compiler issues other than
efficiency, including compiler error messages, the &SBCL compiler's
unusual approach to type safety in the presence of type declarations,
the effects of various compiler optimization policies, and the way
that inlining and open coding may cause optimized code to differ from
a naive translation. Efficiency issues are sufficiently varied and
separate that they have <link linkend="efficiency">their own
chapter</link>.</para>

<sect1><title>Error Messages</>
<!--INDEX {error messages}{compiler}-->
<!--INDEX {compiler error messages}-->

<para>The compiler supplies a large amount of source location
information in error messages. The error messages contain a lot of
detail in a terse format, so they may be confusing at first. Error
messages will be illustrated using this example program:
<programlisting>(defmacro zoq (x)
  `(roq (ploq (+ ,x 3))))

(defun foo (y)
  (declare (symbol y))
  (zoq y))</programlisting>
The main problem with this program is that it is trying to add
<literal>3</> to a symbol. Note also that the functions
<function>roq</> and <function>ploq</> aren't defined anywhere.
</para>

<sect2><title>The Parts of the Error Message</>

<para>When processing this program, the compiler will produce this warning:
<screen>file: /tmp/foo.lisp

in: DEFUN FOO
  (ZOQ Y)
--> ROQ PLOQ + 
==>
  Y
caught WARNING:
  Result is a SYMBOL, not a NUMBER.</screen>
In this example we see each of the six possible parts of a compiler error
message:
<orderedlist>
  <listitem><para><computeroutput>File: /tmp/foo.lisp</>
    This is the name of the file that the compiler read the
    relevant code from.  The file name is displayed because it
    may not be immediately obvious when there is an
    error during compilation of a large system, especially when
    <function>with-compilation-unit</> is used to delay undefined
    warnings.</para></listitem>
  <listitem><para><computeroutput>in: DEFUN FOO</> This is the
    definition top-level form responsible for the error. It is
    obtained by taking the first two elements of the enclosing form
    whose first element is a symbol beginning with <quote><literal>def</></>.
    If there is no such enclosing <quote><literal>def</></> form, then the 
    outermost form is used.  If there are multiple <literal>def</>
    forms, then they are all printed from the outside in, separated by
    <literal>=></>'s.  In this example, the problem was in the
    <function>defun</> for <function>foo</>.</para></listitem>
  <listitem><para><computeroutput>(ZOQ Y)</> This is the
    <emphasis>original source</> form responsible for the error.
    Original source means that the form directly appeared in the
    original input to the compiler, i.e. in the lambda passed to
    <function>compile</> or in the top-level form read from the
    source file. In this example, the expansion of the <function>zoq</>
    macro was responsible for the error.</para></listitem>
  <listitem><para><computeroutput>--> ROQ PLOQ +</> This is the
    <emphasis>processing path</> that the compiler used to produce
    the errorful code.  The processing path is a representation of
    the evaluated forms enclosing the actual source that the
    compiler encountered when processing the original source.
    The path is the first element of each form, or the form itself
    if the form is not a list.  These forms result from the
    expansion of macros or source-to-source transformation done
    by the compiler.  In this example, the enclosing evaluated forms
    are the calls to <function>roq</>, <function>ploq</> and
    <function>+</>.  These calls resulted from the expansion of
    the <function>zoq</> macro.</para></listitem>
  <listitem><para><computeroutput>==> Y</> This is the
    <emphasis>actual source</> responsible for the error. If
    the actual source appears in the explanation, then
    we print the next enclosing evaluated form, instead of
    printing the actual source twice.  (This is the form
    that would otherwise have been the last form of the processing
    path.) In this example, the problem is with the evaluation of
    the reference to the variable <varname>y</>.</para></listitem>
  <listitem><para>
    <computeroutput>caught WARNING: Result is a SYMBOL, not a NUMBER.</>
    This is the <emphasis>explanation</> of the problem. In this
    example, the problem is that <varname>y</> evaluates to a symbol,
    but is in a context where a number is required (the argument
    to <function>+</>).</para></listitem>
</orderedlist>

Note that each part of the error message is distinctively marked:

<itemizedlist>
  <listitem><para> <computeroutput>file:</> and <computeroutput>in:</>
    mark the file and definition, respectively.</para></listitem>
  <listitem><para> The original source is an indented form with no
    prefix.</para></listitem>
  <listitem><para> Each line of the processing path is prefixed with
   <computeroutput>--></computeroutput></para></listitem>
  <listitem><para> The actual source form is indented like the original
    source, but is marked by a preceding <computeroutput>==></> line.
    </para></listitem>
  <listitem><para> The explanation is prefixed with the error
    severity, which can be <computeroutput>caught ERROR:</>,
    <computeroutput>caught WARNING:</>,
    <computeroutput>caught STYLE-WARNING:</>, or
    <computeroutput>note:</>. </para></listitem>
</itemizedlist>
</para>

<para>Each part of the error message is more specific than the preceding
one.  If consecutive error messages are for nearby locations, then the
front part of the error messages would be the same.  In this case, the
compiler omits as much of the second message as in common with the
first.  For example:
<screen>file: /tmp/foo.lisp

in: DEFUN FOO
  (ZOQ Y)
--> ROQ
==>
  (PLOQ (+ Y 3))
caught STYLE-WARNING:
  undefined function: PLOQ

==>
  (ROQ (PLOQ (+ Y 3)))
caught STYLE-WARNING:
  undefined function: ROQ</screen>
In this example, the file, definition and original source are
identical for the two messages, so the compiler omits them in the
second message.  If consecutive messages are entirely identical, then
the compiler prints only the first message, followed by:
<computeroutput>[Last message occurs <replaceable>repeats</> times]</>
where <replaceable>repeats</> is the number of times the message
was given.</para>

<para>If the source was not from a file, then no file line is printed.
If the actual source is the same as the original source, then the
processing path and actual source will be omitted. If no forms
intervene between the original source and the actual source, then the
processing path will also be omitted.</para>

</sect2>

<sect2><title>The Original and Actual Source</>

<para>The <emphasis>original source</> displayed will almost always be
a list. If the actual source for an error message is a symbol, the
original source will be the immediately enclosing evaluated list form.
So even if the offending symbol does appear in the original source,
the compiler will print the enclosing list and then print the symbol
as the actual source (as though the symbol were introduced by a
macro.)</para>

<para>When the <emphasis>actual source</> is displayed
(and is not a symbol), it will always
be code that resulted from the expansion of a macro or a source-to-source
compiler optimization.  This is code that did not appear in the original
source program; it was introduced by the compiler.</para>

<para>Keep in mind that when the compiler displays a source form
in an error message, it always displays the most specific (innermost)
responsible form.  For example, compiling this function
<programlisting>(defun bar (x)
  (let (a)
    (declare (fixnum a))
    (setq a (foo x))
    a))</programlisting>
gives this error message
<screen>in: DEFUN BAR
  (LET (A) (DECLARE (FIXNUM A)) (SETQ A (FOO X)) A)
caught WARNING: The binding of A is not a FIXNUM:
  NIL</screen>
This error message is not saying <quote>there is a problem somewhere in
this <function>let</></quote> &mdash; it is saying that there is a
problem with the <function>let</> itself. In this example, the problem
is that <varname>a</>'s <literal>nil</> initial value is not a
<type>fixnum</>.</para>

</sect2>

<sect2><title>The Processing Path</>
<!--INDEX processing path-->
<!--INDEX macroexpansion-->
<!--INDEX source-to-source transformation-->

<para>The processing path is mainly useful for debugging macros, so if
you don't write macros, you can probably ignore it. Consider this
example:

<programlisting>(defun foo (n)
  (dotimes (i n *undefined*)))
</programlisting>

Compiling results in this error message:

<screen>in: DEFUN FOO
  (DOTIMES (I N *UNDEFINED*))
--> DO BLOCK LET TAGBODY RETURN-FROM
==>
  (PROGN *UNDEFINED*)
caught STYLE-WARNING:
  undefined variable: *UNDEFINED*</screen>

Note that <function>do</> appears in the processing path. This is because
<function>dotimes</> expands into:

<programlisting>(do ((i 0 (1+ i)) (#:g1 n))
    ((>= i #:g1) *undefined*)
  (declare (type unsigned-byte i)))</programlisting>

The rest of the processing path results from the expansion
of <function>do</>:

<programlisting>
(block nil
  (let ((i 0) (#:g1 n))
    (declare (type unsigned-byte i))
    (tagbody (go #:g3)
     #:g2    (psetq i (1+ i))
     #:g3    (unless (>= i #:g1) (go #:g2))
             (return-from nil (progn *undefined*)))))
</programlisting>

In this example, the compiler descended into the <function>block</>,
<function>let</>, <function>tagbody</> and <function>return-from</> to
reach the <function>progn</> printed as the actual source. This is a
place where the <quote>actual source appears in explanation</> rule
was applied. The innermost actual source form was the symbol
<varname>*undefined*</> itself, but that also appeared in the
explanation, so the compiler backed out one level.</para>

</sect2>

<sect2><title>Error Severity</>
<!--INDEX severity of compiler errors -->
<!--INDEX compiler error severity -->

<para>There are four levels of compiler error severity:
<wordasword>error</>, <wordasword>warning</>, <wordasword>style
warning</>, and <wordasword>note</>. The first three levels correspond
to condition classes which are defined in the &ANSI; standard for
&CommonLisp; and which have special significance to the
<function>compile</> and <function>compile-file</> functions. These
levels of compiler error severity occur when the compiler handles
conditions of these classes. The fourth level of compiler error
severity, <wordasword>note</>, is used for problems which are too mild
for the standard condition classes, typically hints about how
efficiency might be improved.</para>

</sect2>

<sect2><title>Errors During Macroexpansion</>
<!--INDEX {macroexpansion}{errors during}-->

<para>The compiler handles errors that happen during macroexpansion,
turning them into compiler errors. If you want to debug the error (to
debug a macro), you can set <varname>*break-on-signals*</> to
<literal>error</>. For example, this definition:

<programlisting>(defun foo (e l)
  (do ((current l (cdr current))
       ((atom current) nil))
      (when (eq (car current) e) (return current))))</programlisting>

gives this error:

<screen>in: DEFUN FOO
  (DO ((CURRENT L #) (# NIL)) (WHEN (EQ # E) (RETURN CURRENT)) )
caught ERROR: (during macroexpansion)

error in function LISP::DO-DO-BODY:
   DO step variable is not a symbol: (ATOM CURRENT)</screen>
</para>

</sect2>

<sect2><title>Read Errors</>
<!--INDEX {read errors}{compiler}-->

<para>&SBCL;'s compiler (unlike &CMUCL;'s) does not attempt to recover
from read errors when reading a source file, but instead just reports
the offending character position and gives up on the entire source
file.</para>

</sect2>

<!-- FIXME: How much control over error messages is in SBCL?
_     How much should be? How much of this documentation should
_     we save or adapt? 
_ 
_ %%\node Error Message Parameterization,  , Read Errors, Interpreting Error Messages
_ \subsection{Error Message Parameterization}
_ \cpsubindex{error messages}{verbosity}
_ \cpsubindex{verbosity}{of error messages}
_ 
_ There is some control over the verbosity of error messages.  See also
_ \varref{undefined-warning-limit}, \code{*efficiency-note-limit*} and
_ \varref{efficiency-note-cost-threshold}.
_ 
_ \begin{defvar}{}{enclosing-source-cutoff}
_ 
_   This variable specifies the number of enclosing actual source forms
_   that are printed in full, rather than in the abbreviated processing
_   path format.  Increasing the value from its default of \code{1}
_   allows you to see more of the guts of the macroexpanded source,
_   which is useful when debugging macros.
_ \end{defvar}
_ 
_ \begin{defvar}{}{error-print-length}
_   \defvarx{error-print-level}
_ 
_   These variables are the print level and print length used in
_   printing error messages.  The default values are \code{5} and
_   \code{3}.  If null, the global values of \code{*print-level*} and
_   \code{*print-length*} are used.
_ \end{defvar}
_ 
_ \begin{defmac}{extensions:}{def-source-context}{%
_     \args{\var{name} \var{lambda-list} \mstar{form}}}
_ 
_   This macro defines how to extract an abbreviated source context from
_   the \var{name}d form when it appears in the compiler input.
_   \var{lambda-list} is a \code{defmacro} style lambda-list used to
_   parse the arguments.  The \var{body} should return a list of
_   subforms that can be printed on about one line.  There are
_   predefined methods for \code{defstruct}, \code{defmethod}, etc.  If
_   no method is defined, then the first two subforms are returned.
_   Note that this facility implicitly determines the string name
_   associated with anonymous functions.
_ \end{defmac}
_ 
_ -->

</sect1>

<sect1><title>The Compiler's Handling of Types</>

<para>The most unusual features of the &SBCL; compiler (which is
very similar to the original &CMUCL compiler, also known as
&Python;) is its unusually sophisticated understanding of the
&CommonLisp; type system and its unusually conservative approach to
the implementation of type declarations. These two features reward the
use of type declarations throughout development, even when high
performance is not a concern. (Also, as discussed <link
linkend="efficiency">in the chapter on performance</>, the use of
appropriate type declarations can be very important for performance as
well.)</para>

<para>The &SBCL; compiler, like the related compiler in &CMUCL;,
treats type declarations much differently than other Lisp compilers.
By default (<emphasis>i.e.</>, at ordinary levels of the
<parameter>safety</> compiler optimization parameter), the compiler
doesn't blindly believe most type declarations; it considers them
assertions about the program that should be checked.</para>

<para>The &SBCL; compiler also has a greater knowledge of the
&CommonLisp; type system than other compilers.  Support is incomplete
only for the <type>not</>, <type>and</> and <type>satisfies</>
types.
<!-- FIXME: See also sections \ref{advanced-type-stuff}
     and \ref{type-inference}, once we snarf them from the
     CMU CL manual. -->
</para>

<sect2 id=compiler-impl-limitations><title>Implementation Limitations</>

<para>
Ideally, the compiler would consider <emphasis>all</> type declarations to
be assertions, so that adding type declarations to a program, no
matter how incorrect they might be, would <emphasis>never</> cause
undefined behavior. As of &SBCL; version 0.6.4, the compiler is known to
fall short of this goal in two areas:
<itemizedlist>
  <listitem><para>The compiler trusts function return values which 
    have been established with <function>proclaim</>.</para></listitem>
  <listitem><para>There are a few poorly characterized but apparently
    very uncommon situations where a type declaration in an unexpected
    location will be trusted and never checked by the
    compiler.</para></listitem>
</itemizedlist></para>

<para>These are important bugs, but are not necessarily easy to fix,
so they may, alas, remain in the system for a while.</para>

</sect2>

<sect2><title>Type Errors at Compile Time</>
<!--INDEX compile time type errors-->
<!--INDEX type checking}{at compile time}-->

<para>If the compiler can prove at compile time that some portion of
the program cannot be executed without a type error, then it will give
a warning at compile time. It is possible that the offending code
would never actually be executed at run-time due to some higher level
consistency constraint unknown to the compiler, so a type warning
doesn't always indicate an incorrect program. For example, consider
this code fragment:

<programlisting>(defun raz (foo)
  (let ((x (case foo
             (:this 13)
             (:that 9)
             (:the-other 42))))
    (declare (fixnum x))
    (foo x)))
</programlisting>

Compilation produces this warning:

<screen>in: DEFUN RAZ
  (CASE FOO (:THIS 13) (:THAT 9) (:THE-OTHER 42))
--> LET COND IF COND IF COND IF
==>
  (COND)
caught WARNING: This is not a FIXNUM:
  NIL</screen>

In this case, the warning means that if <varname>foo</> isn't any of
<literal>:this</>, <literal>:that</> or <literal>:the-other</>, then
<varname>x</> will be initialized to <literal>nil</>, which the
<type>fixnum</> declaration makes illegal. The warning will go away if
<function>ecase</> is used instead of <function>case</>, or if
<literal>:the-other</> is changed to <literal>t</>.</para>

<para>This sort of spurious type warning happens moderately often in
the expansion of complex macros and in inline functions. In such
cases, there may be dead code that is impossible to correctly execute.
The compiler can't always prove this code is dead (could never be
executed), so it compiles the erroneous code (which will always signal
an error if it is executed) and gives a warning.</para>

<para>
Type warnings are inhibited when the
<parameter>extensions:inhibit-warnings</> optimization quality is
<literal>3</>. (See <link linkend="compiler-policy">the section 
on compiler policy</>.) This can be used in a local declaration
to inhibit type warnings in a code fragment that has spurious
warnings.</para>

</sect2>

<sect2><title>Precise Type Checking</>
<!--INDEX precise type checking-->
<!--INDEX {type checking}{precise}-->

<para>With the default compilation policy, all type declarations are
precisely checked, except in a few situations (such as using
<function>the</> to constrain the argument type passed to a function)
where they are simply ignored instead. Precise checking means that the
check is done as though <function>typep</> had been called with the
exact type specifier that appeared in the declaration. In &SBCL;,
adding type declarations makes code safer. (Except that as noted <link
linkend="compiler-impl-limitations">elsewhere</link>, remaining bugs in
the compiler's handling of types unfortunately provide some exceptions to
this rule.)</para>

<para>If a variable is declared to be
<type>(integer 3 17)</>
then its
value must always always be an integer between <literal>3</>
and <literal>17</>.
If multiple type declarations apply to a single variable, then all the
declarations must be correct; it is as though all the types were
intersected producing a single <type>and</> type specifier.</para>

<para>Argument type declarations are automatically enforced. If you declare
the type of a function argument, a type check will be done when that
function is called. In a function call, the called function does the
argument type checking, which means that a more restrictive type
assertion in the calling function (e.g., from <function>the</>) may be
lost.</para>

<para>The types of structure slots are also checked. The value of a
structure slot must always be of the type indicated in any
<literal>:type</> slot option. </para>

<para>In traditional &CommonLisp; compilers, not all type assertions
are checked, and type checks are not precise. Traditional compilers
blindly trust explicit type declarations, but may check the argument
type assertions for built-in functions. Type checking is not precise,
since the argument type checks will be for the most general type legal
for that argument. In many systems, type declarations suppress what
little type checking is being done, so adding type declarations makes
code unsafe. This is a problem since it discourages writing type
declarations during initial coding. In addition to being more error
prone, adding type declarations during tuning also loses all the
benefits of debugging with checked type assertions.</para>

<para>To gain maximum benefit from the compiler's type checking, you
should always declare the types of function arguments and structure
slots as precisely as possible. This often involves the use of
<type>or</>, <type>member</>, and other list-style type specifiers.</para>

</sect2>

<sect2 id="weakened-type-checking"><title>Weakened Type Checking</>
<!--INDEX weakened type checking-->
<!--INDEX {type checking}{weakened}-->

<para>At one time, &CMUCL; supported another level of type checking,
<quote>weakened type checking</>, when the value for the
<parameter>speed</> optimization quality is greater than
<parameter>safety</>, and <parameter>safety</> is not <literal>0</>.
The &CMUCL; manual still has a description of it, but the code no
longer corresponds to the manual. It sounds like a good thing to have,
and we might someday be able to restore it in &SBCL; but in the
meantime, if you ask the compiler to optimize <parameter>speed</> to a
higher level than <parameter>safety</>, your program is performing
without a safety net, because &SBCL; may believe any or all type
declarations without any runtime checking at all.</para>

<!-- (beginning of text adapted from out-of-date CMUCL manual, describing
_    features it would be nice for SBCL to restore someday)
_ 
_ <para>When the value for the <parameter>speed</> optimization quality
_ is greater than <parameter>safety</>, and <parameter>safety</> is not
_ <literal>0</>, then type checking is weakened to reduce the speed and
_ space penalty. In structure-intensive code this can double the speed,
_ yet still catch most type errors. Weakened type checks provide a level
_ of safety similar to that of <quote>safe</> code in other &CommonLisp;
_ compilers.</para>
_ 
_ <para>A type check is weakened by changing the check to be for some
_ convenient supertype of the asserted type. For example, <type>(integer
_ 3 17)</> is changed to <type>fixnum</>, <type>(simple-vector 17)</> to
_ <type>simple-vector</>, and structure types are changed to
_ <type>structure-object</>. A test for a complex type like <type>(or node hunk
_ (member :foo :bar :baz))</> will be omitted entirely (i.e., the type
_ is weakened to <type>*</>.) If a precise check can be done for no
_ extra cost, then no weakening is done.</para>
_ 
_ <para>Although weakened type checking is similar to type checking done
_ by other compilers, it is sometimes safer and sometimes less safe.
_ Weakened checks are done in the same places is precise checks, so all
_ the preceding discussion about where checking is done still applies.
_ Weakened checking is sometimes somewhat unsafe because although the
_ check is weakened, the precise type is still input into type
_ inference. In some contexts this will result in type inferences not
_ justified by the weakened check, and hence deletion of some type
_ checks that would be done by conventional compilers.</para>
_ 
_ <para>For example, if this code was compiled with weakened checks
_ 
_ <programlisting>(defstruct foo
_   (a nil :type simple-string))
_ 
_ (defstruct bar
_   (a nil :type single-float))
_ 
_ (defun myfun (x)
_   (declare (type bar x))
_   (* (bar-a x) 3.0))</programlisting>
_ 
_ and <function>myfun</> was passed a value of
_ type <type>foo</>, then no type error would be
_ signaled, and we would try to multiply a <type>simple-vector</> as
_ though it were a <type>single-float</> (with unpredictable results.)
_ This is because the check for <type>bar</> was weakened to
_ <type>structure-object</>, yet when compiling the call to <type>bar-a</>, the
_ compiler thinks it knows it has a <type>bar</>.</para>
_ 
_ <para>Note that normally even weakened type checks report the precise
_ type in error messages. For example, if <function>myfun</>'s
_ <type>bar</> check is weakened to <type>structure-object</>, and the argument
_ is <literal>nil</>, then the error will be:
_ 
_ <screen>Type-error in MYFUN:
_   NIL is not of type BAR</screen>
_ 
_ However, there is some speed and space cost for signaling a precise
_ error, so the weakened type is reported if the <parameter>speed</>
_ optimization quality is <literal>3</> or <parameter>debug</>
_ quality is less than <literal>1</>:
_ 
_ <screen>Type-error in MYFUN:
_   NIL is not of type STRUCTURE-OBJECT</screen>
_ 
_ </para>
_ 
_ (end of text adapted from out-of-date CMUCL manual, describing
_ features it would be nice for SBCL to restore someday) -->

</sect2>

<sect2><title>Getting Existing Programs to Run</>
<!--INDEX {existing programs}{to run}-->
<!--INDEX {types}{portability}-->
<!--INDEX {compatibility with other Lisps}
    (should also have an entry in the non-&ANSI;-isms section)-->

<para>Since &SBCL;'s compiler does much more comprehensive type
checking than other Lisp compilers, &SBCL; will detect type errors in
many programs that have been debugged using other compilers. These
errors are mostly incorrect declarations, although compile-time type
errors can find actual bugs if parts of the program have never been
tested.</para>

<para>Some incorrect declarations can only be detected by run-time
type checking. It is very important to initially compile programs with
full type checks and then test this version. After the checking
version has been tested, then you can consider weakening or
eliminating type checks. <emphasis>This applies even to previously
debugged programs,</emphasis> because the &SBCL; compiler does much
more type inference than other &CommonLisp; compilers, so an incorrect
declaration can do more damage.</para>

<para>The most common problem is with variables whose constant initial
value doesn't match the type declaration. Incorrect constant initial
values will always be flagged by a compile-time type error, and they
are simple to fix once located. Consider this code fragment:

<programlisting>(prog (foo)
  (declare (fixnum foo))
  (setq foo ...)
  ...)</programlisting>

Here <varname>foo</> is given an initial value of <literal>nil</>, but
is declared to be a <type>fixnum</>.  Even if it is never read, the
initial value of a variable must match the declared type.  There are
two ways to fix this problem. Change the declaration

<programlisting>(prog (foo)
  (declare (type (or fixnum null) foo))
  (setq foo ...)
  ...)</programlisting>

or change the initial value

<programlisting>(prog ((foo 0))
  (declare (fixnum foo))
  (setq foo ...)
  ...)</programlisting>

It is generally preferable to change to a legal initial value rather
than to weaken the declaration, but sometimes it is simpler to weaken
the declaration than to try to make an initial value of the
appropriate type.</para>

<para>Another declaration problem occasionally encountered is
incorrect declarations on <function>defmacro</> arguments. This can happen
when a function is converted into a macro. Consider this macro:

<programlisting>(defmacro my-1+ (x)
  (declare (fixnum x))
  `(the fixnum (1+ ,x)))</programlisting>

Although legal and well-defined &CommonLisp; code, this meaning of
this definition is almost certainly not what the writer intended. For
example, this call is illegal:

<programlisting>(my-1+ (+ 4 5))</>

This call is illegal because the argument to the macro is
<literal>(+ 4 5)</>, which is a <type>list</>, not a
<type>fixnum</>.  Because of
macro semantics, it is hardly ever useful to declare the types of
macro arguments.  If you really want to assert something about the
type of the result of evaluating a macro argument, then put a
<function>the</> in the expansion:

<programlisting>(defmacro my-1+ (x)
  `(the fixnum (1+ (the fixnum ,x))))</programlisting>

In this case, it would be stylistically preferable to change this
macro back to a function and declare it inline. Macros have no
efficiency advantage over inline functions when using the
&SBCL; compiler.
<!--FIXME: <xref>inline-expansion</>, once we crib the 
    relevant text from the CMU CL manual.-->
</para>

<para>
Some more subtle problems are caused by incorrect declarations that
can't be detected at compile time.  Consider this code:

<programlisting>(do ((pos 0 (position #\a string :start (1+ pos))))
    ((null pos))
  (declare (fixnum pos))
  ...)</programlisting>

Although <varname>pos</> is almost always a <varname>fixnum</>, it is
<literal>nil</> at the end of the loop. If this example is compiled
with full type checks (the default), then running it will signal a
type error at the end of the loop. If compiled without type checks,
the program will go into an infinite loop (or perhaps
<function>position</> will complain because <literal>(1+ nil)</> isn't
a sensible start.) Why? Because if you compile without type checks,
the compiler just quietly believes the type declaration. Since the
compiler believes that <varname>pos</> is always a <type>fixnum</>, it
believes that <varname>pos</> is never <literal>nil</>, so
<literal>(null pos)</> is never true, and the loop exit test is
optimized away. Such errors are sometimes flagged by unreachable code
notes, but it is still important to initially compile and test any
system with full type checks, even if the system works fine when
compiled using other compilers.</para>

<para>In this case, the fix is to weaken the type declaration to
<type>(or fixnum null)</>.
<footnote><para>Actually, this declaration is unnecessary
  unnecessary in &SBCL;, since it already knows <function>position</>
  returns a non-negative <type>fixnum</> or <literal>nil</>.
  </para></footnote>

Note that there is usually little performance penalty for weakening a
declaration in this way.  Any numeric operations in the body can still
assume the variable is a <type>fixnum</>, since <literal>nil</> is not a legal
numeric argument.  Another possible fix would be to say:

<programlisting>(do ((pos 0 (position #\a string :start (1+ pos))))
    ((null pos))
  (let ((pos pos))
    (declare (fixnum pos))
    ...))</programlisting>

This would be preferable in some circumstances, since it would allow a
non-standard representation to be used for the local <varname>pos</>
variable in the loop body.
<!-- FIXME: <xref>ND-variables</>, once we crib the text from the 
     CMU CL manual. -->
</para>

<para>In summary, remember that <emphasis>all</> values that a variable
<emphasis>ever</> has must be of the declared type, and that you
should test using safe compilation options initially.</para>

</sect2>

</sect1>

<sect1 id="compiler-policy"><title>Compiler Policy</>

<para>As of version 0.6.4, &SBCL; still uses most of the &CMUCL; code
for compiler policy. Thi &CMUCL; code has many features and high-quality
documentation, but the two unfortunately do not match. So this area of
the compiler and its interface needs to be cleaned up. Meanwhile, here
is some rudimentary documentation on the current behavior of the
system.</para>

<para>Compiler policy is controlled by the <parameter>optimize</>
declaration. The compiler supports the &ANSI; optimization qualities,
and also an extension <parameter>sb-ext:inhibit-warnings</>.</para>

<para>Ordinarily, when the <parameter>speed</> quality is high, the
compiler emits notes to notify the programmer about its inability to
apply various optimizations. Setting
<parameter>sb-ext:inhibit-warnings</> to a value at least as large as
the <parameter>speed</> quality inhibits this notification. This can
be useful to suppress notes about code which is known to be
unavoidably inefficient. (For example, the compiler issues notes about
having to use generic arithmetic instead of fixnum arithmetic, which
is not useful for code which truly can't guarantee that its arguments
will always be fixnums.)</para>

<note><para>The basic functionality of the <parameter>optimize
inhibit-warnings</> extension will probably be supported in all future
versions of the system, but it will probably be renamed when the
compiler and its interface are cleaned up. The current name is
misleading, because it mostly inhibits optimization notes, not
warnings. And making it an optimization quality is misleading, because
it shouldn't affect the resulting code at all. It may become a
declaration identifier with a name like SB-EXT:INHIBIT-NOTES, so that
what's currently written

<programlisting>(declaim (optimize (sb-ext:inhibit-warnings 2)))</>

would become something like

<programlisting>(declaim (sb-ext:inhibit-notes 2))</>

</para></note>

<para>When <parameter>speed</> is zero, the compiler emits byte code
instead of native code. Byte code can be substantially more compact
than native code (on the order of a factor of 2) and is usually much,
much slower than native code (on the order of a factor of 50).</para>

<para>When <parameter>safety</> is zero, almost all runtime checking
of types, array bounds, and so forth is suppressed.</para>

<para>When <parameter>safety</> is less than <parameter>speed</>, any
and all type checks may be suppressed. At some point in the past,
&CMUCL; had <link linkend="weakened-type-checking">a more nuanced
interpretation of this.</link> At some point in the future, &SBCL; may
restore that interpretation, or something like it. Until then, setting
<parameter>safety</> less than <parameter>speed</> may have roughly
the same effect as setting <parameter>safety</> to zero.</para>

<para>The value of <parameter>space</> mostly influences the
compiler's decision whether to inline operations, which tend to
increase the size of programs. Use the value <literal>0</> with
caution, since it can cause the compiler to inline operations so
promiscuously that the net effect is to slow the program by causing
cache misses or swapping.</para>

<!-- FIXME: old CMU CL compiler policy, should perhaps be adapted
_    for SBCL. (Unfortunately, the CMU CL docs are out of sync with the
_    CMU CL code, so adapting this requires not only reformatting
_    the documentation, but rooting out code rot.)
_
_<sect2 id="compiler-policy"><title>Compiler Policy</>
_  INDEX {policy}{compiler}
_  INDEX compiler policy
_
_<para>The policy is what tells the compiler <emphasis>how</> to
_compile a program. This is logically (and often textually) distinct
_from the program itself. Broad control of policy is provided by the
_<parameter>optimize</> declaration; other declarations and variables
_control more specific aspects of compilation.</para>
_
_\begin{comment}
_* The Optimize Declaration::
_* The Optimize-Interface Declaration::
_\end{comment}
_
_%%\node The Optimize Declaration, The Optimize-Interface Declaration, Compiler Policy, Compiler Policy
_\subsection{The Optimize Declaration}
_\label{optimize-declaration}
_\cindex{optimize declaration}
_\cpsubindex{declarations}{\code{optimize}}
_
_The \code{optimize} declaration recognizes six different
_\var{qualities}.  The qualities are conceptually independent aspects
_of program performance.  In reality, increasing one quality tends to
_have adverse effects on other qualities.  The compiler compares the
_relative values of qualities when it needs to make a trade-off; i.e.,
_if \code{speed} is greater than \code{safety}, then improve speed at
_the cost of safety.
_
_The default for all qualities (except \code{debug}) is \code{1}.
_Whenever qualities are equal, ties are broken according to a broad
_idea of what a good default environment is supposed to be.  Generally
_this downplays \code{speed}, \code{compile-speed} and \code{space} in
_favor of \code{safety} and \code{debug}.  Novice and casual users
_should stick to the default policy.  Advanced users often want to
_improve speed and memory usage at the cost of safety and
_debuggability.
_
_If the value for a quality is \code{0} or \code{3}, then it may have a
_special interpretation.  A value of \code{0} means ``totally
_unimportant'', and a \code{3} means ``ultimately important.''  These
_extreme optimization values enable ``heroic'' compilation strategies
_that are not always desirable and sometimes self-defeating.
_Specifying more than one quality as \code{3} is not desirable, since
_it doesn't tell the compiler which quality is most important.
_
_
_These are the optimization qualities:
_\begin{Lentry}
_
_\item[\code{speed}] \cindex{speed optimization quality}How fast the
_  program should is run.  \code{speed 3} enables some optimizations
_  that hurt debuggability.
_
_\item[\code{compilation-speed}] \cindex{compilation-speed optimization
_    quality}How fast the compiler should run.  Note that increasing
_  this above \code{safety} weakens type checking.
_
_\item[\code{space}] \cindex{space optimization quality}How much space
_  the compiled code should take up.  Inline expansion is mostly
_  inhibited when \code{space} is greater than \code{speed}.  A value
_  of \code{0} enables promiscuous inline expansion.  Wide use of a
_  \code{0} value is not recommended, as it may waste so much space
_  that run time is slowed.  \xlref{inline-expansion} for a discussion
_  of inline expansion.
_
_\item[\code{debug}] \cindex{debug optimization quality}How debuggable
_  the program should be.  The quality is treated differently from the
_  other qualities: each value indicates a particular level of debugger
_  information; it is not compared with the other qualities.
_  \xlref{debugger-policy} for more details.
_
_\item[\code{safety}] \cindex{safety optimization quality}How much
_  error checking should be done.  If \code{speed}, \code{space} or
_  \code{compilation-speed} is more important than \code{safety}, then
_  type checking is weakened (\pxlref{weakened-type-checks}).  If
_  \code{safety} if \code{0}, then no run time error checking is done.
_  In addition to suppressing type checks, \code{0} also suppresses
_  argument count checking, unbound-symbol checking and array bounds
_  checks.
_
_\item[\code{extensions:inhibit-warnings}] \cindex{inhibit-warnings
_    optimization quality}This is a CMU extension that determines how
_  little (or how much) diagnostic output should be printed during
_  compilation.  This quality is compared to other qualities to
_  determine whether to print style notes and warnings concerning those
_  qualities.  If \code{speed} is greater than \code{inhibit-warnings},
_  then notes about how to improve speed will be printed, etc.  The
_  default value is \code{1}, so raising the value for any standard
_  quality above its default enables notes for that quality.  If
_  \code{inhibit-warnings} is \code{3}, then all notes and most
_  non-serious warnings are inhibited.  This is useful with
_  \code{declare} to suppress warnings about unavoidable problems.
_\end{Lentry}
_
_%%\node The Optimize-Interface Declaration,  , The Optimize Declaration, Compiler Policy
_\subsection{The Optimize-Interface Declaration}
_\label{optimize-interface-declaration}
_\cindex{optimize-interface declaration}
_\cpsubindex{declarations}{\code{optimize-interface}}
_
_The \code{extensions:optimize-interface} declaration is identical in
_syntax to the \code{optimize} declaration, but it specifies the policy
_used during compilation of code the compiler automatically generates
_to check the number and type of arguments supplied to a function.  It
_is useful to specify this policy separately, since even thoroughly
_debugged functions are vulnerable to being passed the wrong arguments.
_The \code{optimize-interface} declaration can specify that arguments
_should be checked even when the general \code{optimize} policy is
_unsafe.
_
_Note that this argument checking is the checking of user-supplied
_arguments to any functions defined within the scope of the
_declaration, \code{not} the checking of arguments to \llisp{}
_primitives that appear in those definitions.
_
_The idea behind this declaration is that it allows the definition of
_functions that appear fully safe to other callers, but that do no
_internal error checking.  Of course, it is possible that arguments may
_be invalid in ways other than having incorrect type.  Functions
_compiled unsafely must still protect themselves against things like
_user-supplied array indices that are out of bounds and improper lists.
_See also the \kwd{context-declarations} option to
_\macref{with-compilation-unit}.
_
_(end of section on compiler policy)
_-->

</sect1>

<sect1><title>Open Coding and Inline Expansion</>
<!--INDEX open-coding-->
<!--INDEX inline expansion-->
<!--INDEX static functions-->

<para>Since &CommonLisp; forbids the redefinition of standard
functions, the compiler can have special knowledge of these standard
functions embedded in it. This special knowledge is used in various
ways (open coding, inline expansion, source transformation), but the
implications to the user are basically the same:
<itemizedlist>
  <listitem><para> Attempts to redefine standard functions may
    be frustrated, since the function may never be called. Although
    it is technically illegal to redefine standard functions, users
    sometimes want to implicitly redefine these functions when they
    are debugging using the <function>trace</> macro.  Special-casing
    of standard functions can be inhibited using the
    <parameter>notinline</> declaration.</para></listitem>
  <listitem><para> The compiler can have multiple alternate
    implementations of standard functions that implement different
    trade-offs of speed, space and safety.  This selection is
    based on the <link linkend="compiler-policy">compiler policy</link>.
    </para></listitem>
</itemizedlist>
</para>

<para>When a function call is <emphasis>open coded</>, inline code whose
effect is equivalent to the function call is substituted for that
function call. When a function call is <emphasis>closed coded</>, it
is usually left as is, although it might be turned into a call to a
different function with different arguments. As an example, if
<function>nthcdr</> were to be open coded, then

<programlisting>(nthcdr 4 foobar)</programlisting>

might turn into

<programlisting>(cdr (cdr (cdr (cdr foobar))))</>

or even

<programlisting>(do ((i 0 (1+ i))
     (list foobar (cdr foobar)))
    ((= i 4) list))</programlisting>

If <function>nth</> is closed coded, then

<programlisting>
(nth x l)
</programlisting>

might stay the same, or turn into something like

<programlisting>
(car (nthcdr x l))
</programlisting>
</para>

<para>In general, open coding sacrifices space for speed, but some
functions (such as <function>car</>) are so simple that they are always
open-coded. Even when not open-coded, a call to a standard function
may be transformed into a different function call (as in the last
example) or compiled as <emphasis>static call</>. Static function call
uses a more efficient calling convention that forbids
redefinition.</para>

</sect1>

</chapter>