[Maxima] 2.7.0 nqthm compile times

Camm Maguire camm at enhanced.com
Tue Jun 26 12:25:31 CDT 2007


Greetings!

Matt Kaufmann <kaufmann at cs.utexas.edu> writes:

> Hi, Camm --
> 
> Here is some feedback with respect to the use of ACL2 on top of GCL,
> as I see it.
> 
> >>    A final question remains of
> >>    whether or not to actually use ftype declaims if provided.
> 
> As you know, in ACL2 we do our own auto-proclaiming of function types.
> Just to be safe, I think it would be good if there were a way to turn
> off the auto-proclamation capability, as a way to work around any
> problems we might encounter, using our own proclaiming instead.  That

Absolutely.  Currently, the switch is
compiler::*compiler-auto-proclaim*.  This said, I have not been
testing with it off for some time, so there is some risk of drift
here.


What I was really thinking of is what to do when it is on, as is the
default, and the user proclaims something anyway.  Three options --
compiler override, user override, or use a type-and of the two.

> said, I can imagine you do a signficantly better job than we do, and
> I'm looking forward to using this new GCL feature!
> 
> I imagine that we might avoid 'si::do-recompile entirely with ACL2.
> Here are some (potentially confused) thoughts:
> 

For large systems, it pays to defer any recompilation until the end.
It appears the only useful hook for this purpose in the cl spec is
with-compilation-unit.  So I imagine the three following situations:

1) casual interactive developement use, autoproclamation and
   recompilation at every step, all is safe and optimal.
2) large system compilation, the developers of which don't want to
   fiddle with proclamation -- wrap the compilation in
   with-compilation-unit. 
3) True old-school blackbelts who want to proclaim on their own --
   (setq si::*disable-recompile* t compiler::*compiler-auto-proclaim* nil)

   or 

   (setq si::*disable-recompile* t) and have the compiler either take
   user overrides or a type-and of the user and the compiler proclaims

> Regarding leaving things in a safe state: For many years we have told
> ACL2 users that they redefine functions at their own peril (and, they
> have to set a flag even to be able to do any redefinition).  So in a
> sense, that justifies leaving things in an unsafe state when there is
> redefinition.  But I think that for ACL2, it would be a nice default
> to leave things in a safe state, even if this means expensive
> recompilation (presumably by leaving si::*disable-recompile* at nil,
> if I understand correctly).  As for with-compilation-unit, I think
> that the important thing is that it leaves things in a safe state
> provided there is no redefinition.

OK, so just to clarify, you vote

1) (si::*disable-recompile* nil) by default, so that default
   interactive use has safe and hopefully optimal recompilation. 
2) with-compilation-unit recompiles any source files containing
   functions with detected signature conflicts at the end, but does
   not compile these functions yet another time for the purpose of
   loading into the running image.  (as stated ealier, it is not safe
   to reload the recompiled original source files due to other
   top-level forms therein.)

Thanks so much for the feedback.  I'd also like to know --

Do you think this is an improvement, or a dangerous complexity?

Take care,

> 
> Thanks --
> -- Matt
>    Sender: camm at intech19.enhanced.com
>    cc: axiom-developer at nongnu.org, maxima at math.utexas.edu,
> 	   Matt Kaufmann <kaufmann at cs.utexas.edu>, gcl-devel at gnu.org
>    From: Camm Maguire <camm at enhanced.com>
>    Date: 22 Jun 2007 17:41:25 -0400
>    X-SpamAssassin-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0
>    X-UTCS-Spam-Status: No, hits=-315 required=200
> 
>    Greetings!
> 
>    [ cc'ed to the maxima and axiom lists, as I would greatly appreciate
>    any user feedback on what they would like (that is practical) in the
>    forthcoming gcl release.  If this is unwelcome traffic, please let me
>    know.]
> 
>    Robert Boyer <boyer at cs.utexas.edu> writes:
> 
>    > Fantastic.  Thanks so much!
>    > 
> 
>    The above is most appreciated, but I was hoping for a bit more of an
>    opinion as to where GCL should be heading in this direction, to wit:
> 
>    Code calling compiled functions of known signature can be rendered
>    incorrect if the callee is subsequently compiled to produce a
>    different signature:
> 
>    =============================================================================
>    COMPILER>(defun foo (x y z) (list x y z))
> 
>    FOO
> 
>    COMPILER>(compile 'foo)
> 
>    ;; Compiling /tmp/gazonk_13883_1.lsp.
>    ;; End of Pass 1.  
>    ;; End of Pass 2.  
>    ;; OPTIMIZE levels: Safety=0 (No runtime error checking), Space=0, Speed=3, (Debug quality ignored)
>    ;; Finished compiling /tmp/gazonk_13883_1.o.
>    ;; Loading /tmp/gazonk_13883_1.o
>     ;; start address -T 0xaa2f80 ;; Finished loading /tmp/gazonk_13883_1.o
>    #<compiled-function FOO>
>    NIL
>    NIL
> 
>    COMPILER>(defun bar (x y z zz) (remove zz (foo x y z)))
> 
>    BAR
> 
>    COMPILER>(compile 'bar)
> 
>    ;; Compiling /tmp/gazonk_13883_1.lsp.
>    ;; End of Pass 1.  
>    ;; End of Pass 2.  
>    ;; OPTIMIZE levels: Safety=0 (No runtime error checking), Space=0, Speed=3, (Debug quality ignored)
>    ;; Finished compiling /tmp/gazonk_13883_1.o.
>    ;; Loading /tmp/gazonk_13883_1.o
>    ;; start address -T 0x87b2b0 ;; Finished loading /tmp/gazonk_13883_1.o
>    #<compiled-function BAR>
>    NIL
>    NIL
> 
>    COMPILER>(bar 1 2 3 1)
> 
>    (2 3)
> 
>    COMPILER>(setq si::*disable-recompile* t)
> 
>    T
> 
>    COMPILER>(defun foo (x y z) (coerce (list x y z) 'vector))
> 
>    FOO
> 
>    COMPILER>(compile 'foo)
> 
>    ;; Compiling /tmp/gazonk_13883_1.lsp.
>    ; (DEFUN FOO ...) is being compiled.
>    ;; Warning: ret type mismatch in auto-proclamation (CONS T
> 						       (CONS T
> 							(CONS T NULL)))(NIL) -> *
> 
>    ;; End of Pass 1.  
>    ;; End of Pass 2.  
>    ;; OPTIMIZE levels: Safety=0 (No runtime error checking), Space=0, Speed=3, (Debug quality ignored)
>    ;; Finished compiling /tmp/gazonk_13883_1.o.
>    ;; Loading /tmp/gazonk_13883_1.o
>     ;; start address -T 0x87b540 ;; Finished loading /tmp/gazonk_13883_1.o
>    #<compiled-function FOO>
>    NIL
>    NIL
> 
>    COMPILER>(bar 1 2 3 1)
>    Segmentation violation: c stack ok:signalling error
>    Error: ERROR "Caught fatal error [memory may be damaged]: Segmentation violation."
>    Fast links are on: do (si::use-fast-links nil) for debugging
>    Signalled by BAR.
>    ERROR "Caught fatal error [memory may be damaged]: Segmentation violation."
> 
>    Broken at BAR.  Type :H for Help.
>    COMPILER>>:q
> 
>    Top level.
>    COMPILER>(setq si::*disable-recompile* nil)
> 
>    NIL
> 
>    COMPILER>(si::do-recompile)
>    Pass1 signature discovery on 1 functions ...
>    Compiling and loading new source in #<output stream "/tmp/gazonk_13883_jvaAQ9.lsp">
>    ;; Compiling /tmp/gazonk_13883_jvaAQ9.lsp.
>    ;; End of Pass 1.  
>    ;; End of Pass 2.  
>    ;; OPTIMIZE levels: Safety=0 (No runtime error checking), Space=0, Speed=3, (Debug quality ignored)
>    ;; Finished compiling /tmp/gazonk_13883_jvaAQ9.o.
>    ;; Loading /tmp/gazonk_13883_jvaAQ9.o
>     ;; start address -T 0x87ff40 ;; Finished loading /tmp/gazonk_13883_jvaAQ9.o
>    done
>    NIL
> 
>    COMPILER>(bar 1 2 3 1)
> 
>    #(2 3)
> 
>    COMPILER>(defun foo (x y z) (list x y z))
> 
>    FOO
> 
>    COMPILER>(compile 'foo)
> 
>    ;; Compiling /tmp/gazonk_13883_1.lsp.
>    ;; End of Pass 1.  
>    ;; End of Pass 2.  
>    ;; OPTIMIZE levels: Safety=0 (No runtime error checking), Space=0, Speed=3, (Debug quality ignored)
>    ;; Finished compiling /tmp/gazonk_13883_1.o.
>    ;; Loading /tmp/gazonk_13883_1.o
>    Pass1 signature discovery on 1 functions ...
>    Compiling and loading new source in #<output stream "/tmp/gazonk_13883_XL6AKh.lsp">
>    ;; Compiling /tmp/gazonk_13883_XL6AKh.lsp.
>    ;; End of Pass 1.  
>    ;; End of Pass 2.  
>    ;; OPTIMIZE levels: Safety=0 (No runtime error checking), Space=0, Speed=3, (Debug quality ignored)
>    ;; Finished compiling /tmp/gazonk_13883_XL6AKh.o.
>    ;; Loading /tmp/gazonk_13883_XL6AKh.o
>     ;; start address -T 0x880a20 ;; Finished loading /tmp/gazonk_13883_XL6AKh.o
>     ;; start address -T 0x887320 ;; Finished loading /tmp/gazonk_13883_1.o
>    #<compiled-function FOO>
>    NIL
>    NIL
> 
>    COMPILER>(bar 1 2 3 1)
> 
>    (2 3)
> 
>    COMPILER>
>    =============================================================================
> 
>    The existing philosophy is therefore not to let the load of the new
>    foo complete without executing the recompile.  This has the
>    disadvantage of compiling functions possibly multiple times, and
>    fragmenting the contiguous memory space.
> 
>    'si::do-recompile has the following behavior at the moment:
> 
> 	   a) if called without an argument, as is done in every loaded
> 	   .o file, will 1) do a fast pass1-only signature discovery run
> 	   on the out of date functions, 2) will write the necessary
> 	   functions to a temporary file, compile and then load it.  Each
> 	   function passes through gcc once, but possibly multiple times
> 	   only through pass1.  System is left in a safe state, but code
> 	   can be recompiled multiple times on subsequent multiple loads.
> 
> 	   b) if called with a non-nil argument, will do the above, but
> 	   write the new source to the filespec provided in the argument,
> 	   which is compiled but not loaded.  The system is left in an
> 	   unsafe state, and implicitly leaves to the user the job of
> 	   integrating the freshly compiled source.
> 
> 	   c) if called with a nil argument, will do the pass1 signature
> 	   discovery, and collect a list of original source files
> 	   containing the recompiled functions.  These files are then
> 	   probed for and recompiled if found.  The system is left in an
> 	   unsafe state, and implicitly leaves to the user the job of
> 	   integrating the freshly recompiled code.  (These files cannot
> 	   be automatically reloaded, as they may contain other top-level
> 	   forms which are only intended to be executed once.  Given
> 	   this, the load was also skipped for the non-nil argument case
> 	   in b) by way of symmetry.  A third recompile for automatic
> 	   loading purposes (as in a)) is ommitted to save compile time.)
> 
>    'with-compilation-unit is as follows:
> 
>    (defmacro with-compilation-unit (opt &rest body)   
>      (declare (optimize (safety 1)))
>      (declare (ignore opt)) 
>      `(progn
> 	(let ((*disable-recompile* t))
> 	  , at body)
> 	(do-recompile nil)))
> 
>    So at present it leaves the system in an unsafe state to avoid a
>    second pass through gcc and load for every recompiled function.  If
>    there are only compile-files and no loads in the unit, no signature
>    conflict is detected and no recompilation is done.  Only loaded
>    functions within the unit trigger recompilation at unit end.  This is
>    somewhat counter to what one might expect from the ansi-doc
>    definition, given its emphasis on compile-file item deferral.
> 
>    Here are some alternatives:
> 
>    1) do another pass through gcc followed by a load when passing the nil
>       argument (or a just a load when passing the non-nil argument) to
>       leave the system in a safe state at the expense of more compile
>       time.
> 
>    2) Never automatically recompile at load, leaving the safety < 3 user
>       to the whims of random segfaults, but provide a safety 3 which
>       eliminates all branch elimination depending on known return
>       signatures.
> 
>    3) Defer auto recompiles to a re-entry of top-level, minimizing the
>       window of unsafe code execution.
> 
>    ...
> 
>    Thoughts most appreciated.  Please help me make this serve the needs
>    of the community.  For those new to this thread, this mechanism
>    obviates the need for ftype declaims.  A final question remains of
>    whether or not to actually use ftype declaims if provided.
> 
>    Take care,
> 
>    -- 
>    Camm Maguire			     			camm at enhanced.com
>    ==========================================================================
>    "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Camm Maguire			     			camm at enhanced.com
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah


More information about the Maxima mailing list