| blob | 7fc13938aab58c211f50781af91f109f64ba483e |
1 ;;;; cross-compiler-only versions of TYPEP, TYPE-OF, and related functions
3 ;;;; This software is part of the SBCL system. See the README file for
4 ;;;; more information.
5 ;;;;
6 ;;;; This software is derived from the CMU CL system, which was
7 ;;;; written at Carnegie Mellon University and released into the
8 ;;;; public domain. The software is in the public domain and is
9 ;;;; provided with absolutely no warranty. See the COPYING and CREDITS
10 ;;;; files for more information.
14 ;;; Is X a fixnum in the target Lisp?
19 ;;; (This was a useful warning when trying to get bootstrapping
20 ;;; to work, but it's mostly irrelevant noise now that the system
21 ;;; works.)
27 ))
30 s
31 "cross-compilation-time type ambiguity (should be OK) in ~S:~%~A"
35 ;;; This warning is issued when giving up on a type calculation where a
36 ;;; conservative answer is acceptable. Since a conservative answer is
37 ;;; acceptable, the only downside is lost optimization opportunities.
42 )))
44 ;;; This warning refers to the flexibility in the ANSI spec with
45 ;;; regard to run-time distinctions between floating point types.
46 ;;; (E.g. the cross-compilation host might not even distinguish
47 ;;; between SINGLE-FLOAT and DOUBLE-FLOAT, so a DOUBLE-FLOAT number
48 ;;; would test positive as SINGLE-FLOAT.) If the target SBCL does make
49 ;;; this distinction, then information is lost. It's not too hard to
50 ;;; contrive situations where this would be a problem. In practice we
51 ;;; don't tend to run into them because all widely used Common Lisp
52 ;;; environments do recognize the distinction between SINGLE-FLOAT and
53 ;;; DOUBLE-FLOAT, and we don't really need the other distinctions
54 ;;; (e.g. between SHORT-FLOAT and SINGLE-FLOAT), so we call
55 ;;; WARN-POSSIBLE-CROSS-TYPE-FLOAT-INFO-LOSS to test at runtime
56 ;;; whether we need to worry about this at all, and not warn unless we
57 ;;; do. If we *do* have to worry about this at runtime, my (WHN
58 ;;; 19990808) guess is that the system will break in multiple places,
59 ;;; so this is a real WARNING, not just a STYLE-WARNING.
60 ;;;
61 ;;; KLUDGE: If we ever try to support LONG-FLOAT or SHORT-FLOAT, this
62 ;;; situation will get a lot more complicated.
70 ;; have a distinct package T%CL to translate
71 ;; for-the-target-Lisp CL symbols to, and should go away
72 ;; completely.
93 ;;; Is SYMBOL in the CL package? Note that we're testing this on the
94 ;;; cross-compilation host, which could do things any old way. In
95 ;;; particular, it might be in the CL package even though
96 ;;; SYMBOL-PACKAGE is not (FIND-PACKAGE :CL). So we test things
97 ;;; another way.
100 symbol))
102 ;;; This is like TYPEP, except that it asks whether HOST-OBJECT would
103 ;;; be of TARGET-TYPE when instantiated on the target SBCL. Since this
104 ;;; is hard to determine in some cases, and since in other cases we
105 ;;; just haven't bothered to try, it needs to return two values, just
106 ;;; like SUBTYPEP: the first value for its conservative opinion (never
107 ;;; T unless it's certain) and the second value to tell whether it's
108 ;;; certain.
112 ;; We don't have to keep track of this as long as system
113 ;; performance is acceptable, since giving up
114 ;; conservatively is a safe way out.
115 #+nil
122 ;; a convenient idiom for making more matches to special cases:
123 ;; Test both forms of target type for membership in LIST.
124 ;;
125 ;; (In order to avoid having to use too much deep knowledge
126 ;; of types, it's sometimes convenient to test RAW-TARGET-TYPE
127 ;; as well as the expanded type, since we can get matches with
128 ;; just EQL. E.g. SIMPLE-STRING can be matched with EQL, while
129 ;; safely matching its expansion,
130 ;; (OR (SIMPLE-ARRAY CHARACTER (*)) (SIMPLE-BASE-STRING *))
131 ;; would require logic clever enough to know that, e.g., OR is
132 ;; commutative.)
137 ;; the ANSI cross-compilation host. KLUDGE: This code will
138 ;; need to be tweaked by hand if the names of these types
139 ;; ever change, ugh!
145 funcallable-instance
149 ;; instead a CLASS object
151 ;; SBCL-specific types which have an analogue specially
152 ;; created on the host system
183 ;; KLUDGE: SBCL has * as an explicit wild type. While
184 ;; this is sort of logical (because (e.g. (ARRAY * 1)) is
185 ;; a valid type) it's not ANSI: looking at the ANSI
186 ;; definitions of complex types like like ARRAY shows
187 ;; that they consider * different from other type names.
188 ;; Someday we should probably get rid of this non-ANSIism
189 ;; in base SBCL, but until we do, we might as well here
190 ;; in the cross compiler. And in order to make sure that
191 ;; we don't continue doing it after we someday patch
192 ;; SBCL's type system so that * is no longer a type, we
193 ;; make this assertion. -- WHN 2001-08-08
197 ;; between any host ANSI Common Lisp and the target
198 ;; Common Lisp. (Some array types are too, but they
199 ;; were picked off earlier.)
202 list nil null number rational real signed-byte symbol t
203 unsigned-byte))
206 ;; too, but less exactly.
220 ;; Some types require translation between the cross-compilation
221 ;; host Common Lisp and the target SBCL.
226 ;; Some types are too hard to handle in the positive
227 ;; case, but at least we can be confident in a large
228 ;; fraction of the negative cases..
242 ;; Neither target CL:STREAM nor target SB!KERNEL:INSTANCE
243 ;; is implemented as a STRUCTURE-OBJECT, so they'll fall
244 ;; through the tests above. We don't want to assume too
245 ;; much about them here, but at least we know enough
246 ;; about them to say that neither T nor NIL nor indeed
247 ;; any other symbol in the cross-compilation host is one.
248 ;; That knowledge suffices to answer so many of the
249 ;; questions that the cross-compiler asks that it's well
250 ;; worth special-casing it here.
254 ;; various hacks for composite types..
259 ;; Many complex types are guaranteed to correspond exactly
260 ;; between any host ANSI Common Lisp and the target SBCL.
263 ;; Floating point types are guaranteed to correspond,
264 ;; too, but less exactly.
271 ;; Some complex types have translations that are less
272 ;; trivial.
275 ;; If we want to work with the KEYWORD type, we need
276 ;; to grok (SATISFIES KEYWORDP).
281 ;; Many things like KEYWORDP, ODDP, PACKAGEP,
282 ;; and NULL correspond between host and target.
284 host-object)))
285 t)
286 ;; For symbols not in the CL package, it's not
287 ;; in general clear how things correspond
288 ;; between host and target, so we punt.
290 ;; Some complex types are too hard to handle in the
291 ;; positive case, but at least we can be confident in
292 ;; a large fraction of the negative cases..
309 ;; And the Common Lisp type system is complicated,
310 ;; and we don't try to implement everything.
312 ;; And the Common Lisp type system is complicated, and
313 ;; we don't try to implement everything.
317 ;;; This is an incomplete TYPEP which runs at cross-compile time to
318 ;;; tell whether OBJECT is the host Lisp representation of a target
319 ;;; SBCL type specified by TARGET-TYPE-SPEC. It need make no pretense
320 ;;; to completeness, since it need only handle the cases which arise
321 ;;; when building SBCL itself, e.g. testing that range limits FOO and
322 ;;; BAR in (INTEGER FOO BAR) are INTEGERs.
328 ;; A program that calls TYPEP doesn't want uncertainty and
329 ;; probably can't handle it.
331 opinion
333 host-object
334 target-type-spec))))
336 ;;; This is an incomplete, portable implementation for use at
337 ;;; cross-compile time only.
349 ;; Since at cross-compile time we build a CLOS-free bootstrap
350 ;; version of SBCL, it's unclear how to explain to it what a
351 ;; generic function is.
353 ;; There's no ANSI way to find out what the function is
354 ;; declared to be, so we just return the CTYPE for the
355 ;; most-general function.
365 :element-type etype
370 ;; (Note that SBCL doesn't distinguish between BASE-CHAR and
371 ;; CHARACTER.)
374 nil)
376 ;; Beyond this, there seems to be no portable correspondence.
381 ;; There might be more cases which we could handle with
382 ;; sufficient effort; since all we *need* to handle are enough
383 ;; cases for bootstrapping, we don't try to be complete here,. If
384 ;; future maintainers make the bootstrap code more complicated,
385 ;; they can also add new cases here to handle it. -- WHN 2000-11-11