| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
Change-Id: I0fa069fbeff6718a765ece948c2c1bce285496f7
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/7449
Reviewed-by: grfn <grfn@gws.fyi>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
|
|
Change-Id: I595087eff943d38a9fc78a83d37e207bb2ab79bc
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/7443
Reviewed-by: grfn <grfn@gws.fyi>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
|
|
See cl/7368
Change-Id: I97630994c3d65f4d16414a0da236ce000a5b6d33
Signed-off-by: Adam Joseph <adam@westernsemico.com>
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/7374
Reviewed-by: tazjin <tazjin@tvl.su>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
|
|
See cl/7372; Nix equality semantics require the ability to track
pointer equality of upvalue-sets.
Signed-off-by: Adam Joseph <adam@westernsemico.com>
Change-Id: I82ba517499cf370189a80355e4e46a5caaab7153
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/7373
Reviewed-by: tazjin <tazjin@tvl.su>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
|
|
It is very confusing that this opcode is called DataLocalIdx, but it
carries a StackIdx rather than a LocalIdx. It seems like this
really ought to be called DataStackIdx, but maybe I've
misunderstood; if so please explain it to me.
Change-Id: I91f6ffa759412beef0b91d3c19ec0d873fe51b99
Signed-off-by: Adam Joseph <adam@westernsemico.com>
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/7088
Reviewed-by: tazjin <tazjin@tvl.su>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
|
|
It isn't possible to implement PartialEq properly for Value, because
any sensible implementation needs to force() thunks, which cannot be
done without a `&mut VM`.
The existing derive(PartialEq) has false negatives, which caused the
bug which cl/7142 fixed. Fortunately that bug was easy to find, but
a silent false negative deep within the bowels of nixpkgs could be a
real nightmare to hunt down.
Let's just remove the PartialEq impl for Value, and the other
derive(PartialEq)'s that depend on it.
Signed-off-by: Adam Joseph <adam@westernsemico.com>
Change-Id: Iacd3726fefc7fc1edadcd7e9b586e04cf8466775
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/7144
Reviewed-by: kanepyork <rikingcoding@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: tazjin <tazjin@tvl.su>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
|
|
When compiling a lambda, take the name of the outer slot (if
available) and store it as the name on the lambda.
These names are then shown in the observer, and nowhere else (so far).
It is of course common for these things to thread through many
different context levels (e.g. `f = a: b: c: ...`), in this setup only
the outermost closure or thunk gains the name, but it's better than
nothing.
Change-Id: I681ba74e624f2b9e7a147144a27acf364fe6ccc7
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/7065
Reviewed-by: grfn <grfn@gws.fyi>
Autosubmit: tazjin <tazjin@tvl.su>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
|
|
This commit deduplicates the Thunk-like functionality from Closure
and unifies it with Thunk.
Specifically, we now have one and only one way of breaking reference
cycles in the Value-graph: Thunk. No other variant contains a
RefCell. This should make it easier to reason about the behavior of
the VM. InnerClosure and UpvaluesCarrier are no longer necessary.
This refactoring allowed an improvement in code generation:
`Rc<RefCell<>>`s are now created only for closures which do not have
self-references or deferred upvalues, instead of for all closures.
OpClosure has been split into two separate opcodes:
- OpClosure creates non-recursive closures with no deferred
upvalues. The VM will not create an `Rc<RefCell<>>` when executing
this instruction.
- OpThunkClosure is used for closures with self-references or
deferred upvalues. The VM will create a Thunk when executing this
opcode, but the Thunk will start out already in the
`ThunkRepr::Evaluated` state, rather than in the
`ThunkRepr::Suspeneded` state.
To avoid confusion, OpThunk has been renamed OpThunkSuspended.
Thanks to @sterni for suggesting that all this could be done without
adding an additional variant to ThunkRepr. This does however mean
that there will be mutating accesses to `ThunkRepr::Evaluated`,
which was not previously the case. The field `is_finalised:bool`
has been added to `Closure` to ensure that these mutating accesses
are performed only on finalised Closures. Both the check and the
field are present only if `#[cfg(debug_assertions)]`.
Change-Id: I04131501029772f30e28da8281d864427685097f
Signed-off-by: Adam Joseph <adam@westernsemico.com>
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/7019
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
Reviewed-by: tazjin <tazjin@tvl.su>
|
|
Validate "closed formals" (formal parameters without an ellipsis) via a
new ValidateClosedFormals op, which checks the arguments (in an attr set
at the top of the stack) against the formal parameters on the Lambda in
the current frame, and returns a new UnexpectedArgument error (including
the span of the formals themselves!!) if any arguments aren't allowed
Change-Id: Idcc47a59167a83be1832a6229f137d84e426c56c
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/7002
Reviewed-by: tazjin <tazjin@tvl.su>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
|
|
In preparation for both implementing the `functionArgs` builtin and
adding support for validating closed formals, record information about
the formal arguments to a function *on the Lambda itself*. This may seem
a little odd for the purposes of just closed formal checking, but is
something we have to have anyway for builtins.functionArgs so I figured
I'd do it this way to kill both birds with one stone.
Change-Id: Ie3770a607bf352a1eb395c79ca29bb25d5978cd8
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/7001
Reviewed-by: tazjin <tazjin@tvl.su>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
|
|
Change-Id: I8dcddf2b419761e475e71215c199eef2f7dc61dc
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/7028
Autosubmit: Adam Joseph <adam@westernsemico.com>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
Reviewed-by: tazjin <tazjin@tvl.su>
|
|
Lambda has a quite large and variable-sized runtime representation,
unlike Rc<Lambda>. It would be easy to accidentally call clone() on
this and create input-dependent performance regressions.
Nothing in the codebase is currently using Lambda.clone(). Let's
remove the derived instance. If it's really needed it is very easy
to add it back in, but whoever does that will have to look at the
struct they're adding Clone to, which will hopefully prompt them to
think about whether or not that's really what they want to do.
Change-Id: I7806a741862ab4402229839ce3f4ea75aafd6d12
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/7029
Autosubmit: Adam Joseph <adam@westernsemico.com>
Reviewed-by: tazjin <tazjin@tvl.su>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
|
|
Using rust's PartialEq trait to implement Nix equality semantics is
reasonably fraught with peril, both because the actual laws are
different than what nix expects, and (more importantly) because certain
things actually require extra context to compare for equality (for
example, thunks need to be forced). This converts the manual PartialEq
impl for Value (and all its descendants) to a *derived* PartialEq
impl (which requires a lot of extra PartialEq derives on miscellanious
other types within the codebase), and converts the previous
nix-semantics equality comparison into a new `nix_eq` method. This
returns an EvalResult, even though it can't currently return an error,
to allow it to fail when eg forcing thunks (which it will do soon).
Since the PartialEq impls for Value and NixAttrs are now quite boring,
this converts the generated proptests for those into handwritten ones
that cover `nix_eq` instead
Change-Id: If3da7171f88c22eda5b7a60030d8b00c3b76f672
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/6650
Autosubmit: grfn <grfn@gws.fyi>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
Reviewed-by: tazjin <tazjin@tvl.su>
|
|
This struct will be responsible for tracking upvalues (and is a
convenient place to introduce optimisations for reducing value clones)
instead of a plain value vector.
The main motivation for this is that the upvalues will have to capture
the `with`-stack fully and I want to avoid duplicating the logic for
this between the two capturing types.
Change-Id: I6654f8739fc2e04ca046e6667d4a015f51724e99
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/6485
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
Reviewed-by: sterni <sternenseemann@systemli.org>
|
|
This trait abstracts over the commonalities of upvalue handling
between closures and thunks.
It allows the VM to simplify the code used for setting up upvalues,
without duplicating between the two different types.
Note that this does not yet refactor the VM code to optimally make use
of this.
Change-Id: If8de5181f26ae1fa00d554f1ae6ea473ee4b6070
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/6347
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
Reviewed-by: sterni <sternenseemann@systemli.org>
|
|
This instruction finalises the initialisation of deferred upvalues in
closures (and soon, thunks).
The compiler does not yet emit this instruction, some more accounting
is needed for that.
Change-Id: Ic4181b26e19779e206f51e17388559400da5f93a
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/6337
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
Reviewed-by: sterni <sternenseemann@systemli.org>
|
|
The previous closure refactoring introduced a bug in which the same
closure object would get mutated constantly for each instance of a
closure, which is incorrect behaviour.
This commit instead introduces an explicit new Value variant for the
internal "blueprint" that the compiler generates (essentially just the
lambda) and uses this variant to construct the closure at runtime.
If the blueprint ever leaks out to a user somehow that is a critical
bug and tvix-eval will panic.
As a ~treat~ test for this, the fibonacci function is being used as it
is a self-recursive closure (i.e. different instantiations of the same
"blueprint") getting called with different values and it's good to
have it around.
Change-Id: I485de675e9bb0c599ed7d5dc0f001eb34ab4c15f
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/6323
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
Reviewed-by: sterni <sternenseemann@systemli.org>
|
|
This is required to efficiently construct the upvalue array at
runtime, as there are situations where during Closure construction
multiple things already have a reference to the closure (e.g. a
self-reference).
Change-Id: I35263b845fdc695dc873de489f5168d39b370f6a
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/6312
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
Reviewed-by: sterni <sternenseemann@systemli.org>
|
|
Fully implements the instructions for compiling closure
objects (without runtime handling yet).
Closure (and thunk) objects are created at runtime by capturing all
known upvalues. To represent this, the instructions for creating them
need to have a variable number of arguments. Due to that, this commit
introduces new variants in OpCode that are not actually operations,
but data.
If the VM is implemented correctly, the instruction pointer should
never point at these. Due to this, the VM will panic if it sees a data
operand during an execution run.
Change-Id: Ic56b49b3a42736dc437751e76df0e89c8d0619c6
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/6291
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
Reviewed-by: grfn <grfn@gws.fyi>
|
|
This adds a new upvalue tracking structure in the compiler to resolve
upvalues and track their positions within a function when compiling a
closure.
The compiler will emit runtime upvalue access instructions after this
commit, but the creation of the runtime closure object etc. is not yet
wired up.
Change-Id: Ib0c2c25f686bfd45f797c528753068858e3a770d
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/6289
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
Reviewed-by: grfn <grfn@gws.fyi>
|
|
This struct will carry the upvalue machinery in addition to the lambda
itself. For now, all lambdas are wrapped in closures (though
technically analysis of the environment can later remove innermost
Closure wrapper, but this optimisation may not be worth it).
Change-Id: If2b68549ec1ea4ab838fdc47a2181c694ac937f2
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/6269
Reviewed-by: grfn <grfn@gws.fyi>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
|
