* lisp/emacs-lisp/macroexp.el: Break cycle with bytecomp/byte-opt

The recent change in macroexp triggered a cyclic dependency error
during eager macroexpansion when neither `bytecomp` nor `byte-opt` had
been byte-compiled yet.  This fixes it by moving the offending
function to macroexp.el.

* lisp/emacs-lisp/macroexp.el (macroexp--unfold-lambda): Move from
byte-opt.el and rename.
(macroexp--expand-all): Use it.

* lisp/emacs-lisp/byte-opt.el (byte-compile-unfold-lambda): Move to
macroexp.el.
(byte-compile-inline-expand, byte-optimize-form-code-walker):
* lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el (byte-compile-form):
Use `macroexp--unfold-lambda` instead.
This commit is contained in:
Stefan Monnier 2021-02-09 12:02:25 -05:00
parent 3c53d28ae1
commit 04fb1664a8
3 changed files with 68 additions and 78 deletions

View file

@ -200,6 +200,69 @@ and also to avoid outputting the warning during normal execution."
new-form))
new-form)))
(defun macroexp--unfold-lambda (form &optional name)
;; In lexical-binding mode, let and functions don't bind vars in the same way
;; (let obey special-variable-p, but functions don't). But luckily, this
;; doesn't matter here, because function's behavior is underspecified so it
;; can safely be turned into a `let', even though the reverse is not true.
(or name (setq name "anonymous lambda"))
(let* ((lambda (car form))
(values (cdr form))
(arglist (nth 1 lambda))
(body (cdr (cdr lambda)))
optionalp restp
bindings)
(if (and (stringp (car body)) (cdr body))
(setq body (cdr body)))
(if (and (consp (car body)) (eq 'interactive (car (car body))))
(setq body (cdr body)))
;; FIXME: The checks below do not belong in an optimization phase.
(while arglist
(cond ((eq (car arglist) '&optional)
;; ok, I'll let this slide because funcall_lambda() does...
;; (if optionalp (error "multiple &optional keywords in %s" name))
(if restp (error "&optional found after &rest in %s" name))
(if (null (cdr arglist))
(error "nothing after &optional in %s" name))
(setq optionalp t))
((eq (car arglist) '&rest)
;; ...but it is by no stretch of the imagination a reasonable
;; thing that funcall_lambda() allows (&rest x y) and
;; (&rest x &optional y) in arglists.
(if (null (cdr arglist))
(error "nothing after &rest in %s" name))
(if (cdr (cdr arglist))
(error "multiple vars after &rest in %s" name))
(setq restp t))
(restp
(setq bindings (cons (list (car arglist)
(and values (cons 'list values)))
bindings)
values nil))
((and (not optionalp) (null values))
(setq arglist nil values 'too-few))
(t
(setq bindings (cons (list (car arglist) (car values))
bindings)
values (cdr values))))
(setq arglist (cdr arglist)))
(if values
(macroexp--warn-and-return
(format (if (eq values 'too-few)
"attempt to open-code `%s' with too few arguments"
"attempt to open-code `%s' with too many arguments")
name)
form)
;; The following leads to infinite recursion when loading a
;; file containing `(defsubst f () (f))', and then trying to
;; byte-compile that file.
;;(setq body (mapcar 'byte-optimize-form body)))
(if bindings
`(let ,(nreverse bindings) . ,body)
(macroexp-progn body)))))
(defun macroexp--expand-all (form)
"Expand all macros in FORM.
This is an internal version of `macroexpand-all'.
@ -245,12 +308,8 @@ Assumes the caller has bound `macroexpand-all-environment'."
;; i.e. rewrite it to (let (<args>) <body>). We'd do it in the optimizer
;; anyway, but doing it here (i.e. earlier) can sometimes avoid the
;; creation of a closure, thus resulting in much better code.
(let ((newform (if (not (fboundp 'byte-compile-unfold-lambda))
'macroexp--not-unfolded
;; Don't unfold if byte-opt is not yet loaded.
(byte-compile-unfold-lambda form))))
(if (or (eq newform 'macroexp--not-unfolded)
(eq newform form))
(let ((newform (macroexp--unfold-lambda form)))
(if (eq newform form)
;; Unfolding failed for some reason, avoid infinite recursion.
(macroexp--cons (macroexp--all-forms fun 2)
(macroexp--all-forms args)