about summary refs log tree commit diff
path: root/tvix/eval/src/builtins/mod.rs
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorsterni <sternenseemann@systemli.org>2022-10-11T12·34+0200
committerclbot <clbot@tvl.fyi>2022-10-11T15·53+0000
commitfcd5e5370320d934f371bb96069a4719e94aafcd (patch)
treefc535dcc04336d5f9ae5e4b9db09647706a83ad6 /tvix/eval/src/builtins/mod.rs
parentb319e008313d68f2639de0f656d346ed9a823e41 (diff)
fix(tvix/eval/builtins): force acc not list element in foldl' r/5105
When investigating discrepancies between foldl' in tvix and C++ Nix,
I discovered that C++ Nix's foldl' doesn't seem to be strict at all.
Since this seemed wrong, I looked into Haskell's foldl' implementation
which doesn't force the list elements (`val` in our code), but the
accumulation value (`res` in our code). You can look at the code here:
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.17.0.0/docs/src/GHC.List.html#foldl%27

This actually makes a lot of sense: If `res` is not forced after each
application of `op`, we'll end up thunks nested as deeply as the list is
long, potentially taking up a lot of space. This can be limited by
forcing the `res` thunk before applying `op` again (and creating a new
thunk).

I've also PR-ed an equivalent change for C++ Nix at
https://github.com/NixOS/nix/pull/7158. Since this is not merged nor
backported to our Nix 2.3 fork, I've not copied the eval fail test yet,
since it wouldn't when checking our tests against C++ Nix in depot.

Change-Id: I34edf6fc3031fc1485c3e714f2280b4fba8f004b
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/6947
Autosubmit: sterni <sternenseemann@systemli.org>
Reviewed-by: grfn <grfn@gws.fyi>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
Diffstat (limited to 'tvix/eval/src/builtins/mod.rs')
-rw-r--r--tvix/eval/src/builtins/mod.rs2
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/tvix/eval/src/builtins/mod.rs b/tvix/eval/src/builtins/mod.rs
index 47e4eea63d..05c5eceeff 100644
--- a/tvix/eval/src/builtins/mod.rs
+++ b/tvix/eval/src/builtins/mod.rs
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ fn pure_builtins() -> Vec<Builtin> {
                 let mut res = args.pop().unwrap();
                 let op = args.pop().unwrap();
                 for val in list {
-                    val.force(vm)?;
+                    res.force(vm)?;
                     res = vm.call_with(&op, [val, res])?;
                 }