diff mbox series

[bug#70398,5/5] packages: Reduce code bloat due to list allocation in input fields.

Message ID e66ee292ea3368424d1ec904a45c804f5fa81879.1713194148.git.ludo@gnu.org
State New
Headers show
Series Reduce the size of gnu/packages/*.go files | expand

Commit Message

Ludovic Courtès April 15, 2024, 3:37 p.m. UTC 
* guix/packages.scm (add-input-labels): New procedure.
(sanitize-inputs): Add case for (list …).

Change-Id: Ice8241508ded51efd38867b97ca19c262b8c4363
---
 guix/packages.scm | 14 ++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Simon Tournier April 15, 2024, 5:56 p.m. UTC | #1 
Hi Ludo,

On lun., 15 avril 2024 at 17:37, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> +    ((_ (list args ...))
> +     ;; As of 3.0.9, (list ...) is open-coded, which can lead to a long list
> +     ;; of instructions.  To reduce code bloat in package modules where input
> +     ;; fields may create such lists, move list allocation to the callee.
> +     (add-input-labels args ...))

I am not sure to understand: « (list ...) is open-coded, which can lead
to a long list of instructions. ».  Well, irrelevant for .go size but
why not something like:

    ((_ (list args . rest))
      (apply add-inputs-labels (append args rest)))

It would not change for .go size but it would change for run-time if
it’s a long list, no?

Cheers,
simon
Ludovic Courtès April 15, 2024, 8:31 p.m. UTC | #2 
Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

> On lun., 15 avril 2024 at 17:37, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> +    ((_ (list args ...))
>> +     ;; As of 3.0.9, (list ...) is open-coded, which can lead to a long list
>> +     ;; of instructions.  To reduce code bloat in package modules where input
>> +     ;; fields may create such lists, move list allocation to the callee.
>> +     (add-input-labels args ...))
>
> I am not sure to understand: « (list ...) is open-coded, which can lead
> to a long list of instructions. ».

This:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
scheme@(guile-user)> ,c (lambda () (list 1 2 3 4))

[...]

   8    (allocate-words/immediate 0 2)  
   9    (scm-set!/immediate 0 0 2)      
  10    (scm-set!/immediate 0 1 1)      
  11    (allocate-words/immediate 2 2)  
  12    (scm-set!/immediate 2 0 3)      
  13    (scm-set!/immediate 2 1 0)      
  14    (allocate-words/immediate 3 2)  
  15    (scm-set!/immediate 3 0 4)      
  16    (scm-set!/immediate 3 1 2)      
  17    (allocate-words/immediate 4 2)  
  18    (scm-set!/immediate 4 0 5)      
  19    (scm-set!/immediate 4 1 3)      
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

> Well, irrelevant for .go size but why not something like:
>
>     ((_ (list args . rest))
>       (apply add-inputs-labels (append args rest)))

That’s more code and I’m really trying hard to minimize generated code.
:-)

Ludo’.
Simon Tournier April 22, 2024, 12:15 a.m. UTC | #3 
Hi,

On lun., 15 avril 2024 at 22:31, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

>> I am not sure to understand: « (list ...) is open-coded, which can lead
>> to a long list of instructions. ».
>
> This:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> scheme@(guile-user)> ,c (lambda () (list 1 2 3 4))
>
> [...]
>
>    8    (allocate-words/immediate 0 2)  
>    9    (scm-set!/immediate 0 0 2)      
>   10    (scm-set!/immediate 0 1 1)      
>   11    (allocate-words/immediate 2 2)  
>   12    (scm-set!/immediate 2 0 3)      
>   13    (scm-set!/immediate 2 1 0)      
>   14    (allocate-words/immediate 3 2)  
>   15    (scm-set!/immediate 3 0 4)      
>   16    (scm-set!/immediate 3 1 2)      
>   17    (allocate-words/immediate 4 2)  
>   18    (scm-set!/immediate 4 0 5)      
>   19    (scm-set!/immediate 4 1 3)      
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
>> Well, irrelevant for .go size but why not something like:
>>
>>     ((_ (list args . rest))
>>       (apply add-inputs-labels (append args rest)))
>
> That’s more code and I’m really trying hard to minimize generated code.
> :-)

Thanks for explaining. :-)  Yeah that’s make sense.

Cheers,
simon
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/guix/packages.scm b/guix/packages.scm
index 6c697bcc67..3a4f547d6b 100644
--- a/guix/packages.scm
+++ b/guix/packages.scm
@@ -439,16 +439,26 @@  (define (maybe-add-input-labels inputs)
          inputs)
         (else (map add-input-label inputs))))
 
+(define (add-input-labels . inputs)
+  "Add labels to all of INPUTS."
+  (map add-input-label inputs))
+
 (define-syntax sanitize-inputs
   ;; This is written as a macro rather than as a 'define-inlinable' procedure
   ;; because as of Guile 3.0.9, peval can handle (null? '()) but not
   ;; (null? (list x y z)); that residual 'null?' test contributes to code
   ;; bloat.
-  (syntax-rules (quote)
+  (syntax-rules (quote list)
     "Sanitize INPUTS by turning it into a list of name/package tuples if it's
 not already the case."
     ((_ '()) '())
-    ((_ inputs) (maybe-add-input-labels inputs))))
+    ((_ (list args ...))
+     ;; As of 3.0.9, (list ...) is open-coded, which can lead to a long list
+     ;; of instructions.  To reduce code bloat in package modules where input
+     ;; fields may create such lists, move list allocation to the callee.
+     (add-input-labels args ...))
+    ((_ inputs)
+     (maybe-add-input-labels inputs))))
 
 (define-syntax current-location-vector
   (lambda (s)