From: Paul K. <pv...@pv...> - 2011-05-12 13:15:56
|
On 2011-05-12, at 6:42 AM, Nikodemus Siivola wrote: > Update of /cvsroot/sbcl/sbcl/src/compiler > In directory vz-cvs-3.sog:/tmp/cvs-serv3523/src/compiler > > Modified Files: > ir1tran.lisp > Log Message: > 1.0.48.14: more conservative global variable conversion > > Based on patch by Roman Marynchak. > > Fixes lp#722734. > > * Modify IR1-CONVERT-VAR to emit SYMBOL-VALUE wrapper > for all global variables except those which are > ALWAYS-BOUND. > > * Modify IR1-STEP-FORM-P to return false for SYMBOL-VALUE > with constant argument, now that virtually all global > variables are accessed with a function call (which gets > converted via a VOP, so the final machine code remains > the same.) I'm not sure how I feel about this. I've never used the stepper, but it seems to me that its users can expect a function call to trigger a step. Would it be so bad to have %SYMBOL-VALUE or some such that doesn't trigger a step? Paul Khuong |
From: Roman M. <rom...@gm...> - 2011-05-12 14:05:04
|
Hello Paul, I think that %SYMBOL-VALUE is quite trivial, and the stepper can ignore it without a significant loss of the debugging features. Step on it is not likely to provide any useful info. Best Regards, Roman 2011/5/12 Paul Khuong <pv...@pv...> > On 2011-05-12, at 6:42 AM, Nikodemus Siivola wrote: > > > Update of /cvsroot/sbcl/sbcl/src/compiler > > In directory vz-cvs-3.sog:/tmp/cvs-serv3523/src/compiler > > > > Modified Files: > > ir1tran.lisp > > Log Message: > > 1.0.48.14: more conservative global variable conversion > > > > Based on patch by Roman Marynchak. > > > > Fixes lp#722734. > > > > * Modify IR1-CONVERT-VAR to emit SYMBOL-VALUE wrapper > > for all global variables except those which are > > ALWAYS-BOUND. > > > > * Modify IR1-STEP-FORM-P to return false for SYMBOL-VALUE > > with constant argument, now that virtually all global > > variables are accessed with a function call (which gets > > converted via a VOP, so the final machine code remains > > the same.) > > I'm not sure how I feel about this. I've never used the stepper, but it > seems to me that its users can expect a function call to trigger a step. > Would it be so bad to have %SYMBOL-VALUE or some such that doesn't trigger a > step? > > Paul Khuong > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability > What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. > Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools > to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay > _______________________________________________ > Sbcl-devel mailing list > Sbc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-devel > |
From: Nikodemus S. <nik...@ra...> - 2011-05-12 15:45:30
|
On 12 May 2011 16:15, Paul Khuong <pv...@pv...> wrote: > I'm not sure how I feel about this. I've never used the stepper, but it seems to me > that its users can expect a function call to trigger a step. Would it be so bad to have > %SYMBOL-VALUE or some such that doesn't trigger a step? That's certainly possible. There are many other things that don't trigger the stepper as well: * structure accessors * primitive allocators like CONS * primitive accessors like CAR Since DEBUG 3 isn't so insanely slow anymore these days, it might be we should instrument more of these in general. Cheers, -- Nikodemus choise between fantastically steppability > > Paul Khuong > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability > What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. > Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools > to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay > _______________________________________________ > Sbcl-devel mailing list > Sbc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-devel > |