Hello, On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Alessio Stalla <alessiosta...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm interested on having Cells running on ABCL. I have downloaded the > latest snapshot from the Ramarren branch and it appears that only a > few read conditionals are missing (for the MOP package) to make Cells > compile and load fine; attached you find the patch.
I have applied the patch to my repository. > However, the tests fail due to an issue I had already found the first > time I tried Cells on ABCL (see > http://www.mail-archive.com/cells-devel@common-lisp.net/msg00582.html). > The fix for that is apparently simple - replace delete with remove in > c-unlink-used (link.lisp) - but His Kennyness himself said that this > naive fix can have a bad impact on performance, so I have not included > it in my patch. To me, one sensible option would be to enable the > "fix" only on ABCL (it's better to have less than optimal performance > than to have no Cells at all!), but it's a decision that should be > taken by the Cells developers. Unfortunately, I am not really a Cells developer, I just cleaned some things up for cells-gtk to run. So I don't quite understand what the code is doing and the context. Which is why I have no idea whether cd-useds list can contain duplicates. If it cannot, the code doesn't really make sense, since as far as I can tell doing this: diff --git a/link.lisp b/link.lisp index 047783f..7407876 100644 --- a/link.lisp +++ b/link.lisp @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ See the Lisp Lesser GNU Public License for more details. (progn (count-it :unlink-unused) (trc nil "c-unlink-unused" c :dropping-used (car useds)) - (c-unlink-caller (car useds) c) + (caller-drop (car useds) c) (rplaca useds nil)) (progn ;; moved into record-caller 060604 (caller-ensure (car useds) c) would be strictly equivalent when the function is done and eliminate the inner delete entirely, which should fix ABCL problem. Unless I don't see something. I am not sure what would happen if the cd-useds list contained duplicates, and if it did what would happen when caller-drop is called multiple time. At least, if I am getting the control flow correctly. As far as I can tell the reversed recursion doesn't care the the list is not being destructively modified on the unwind, but I am not sure how the caller unlinking interacts with this whole thing. The tests pass, anyway, and if I put (assert (equal (cd-useds c) (remove-duplicates (cd-useds c)))) before nail-unused in c-unlink-unused it doesn't signal an error from cells-gtk demo application. I am not sure how and if it affects performance. But that does not preclude the possibility that there are cases when there could be duplicates, although I am fairly sure that the only place where this list is being added to is record-caller, which doesn't allow duplication. It would be best if someone who knows how this works could comment on that fix, or at least test it. Regards, Jakub Higersberger _______________________________________________ cells-devel site list cells-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/cells-devel
