| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider the following functions:
foo() -> bar(not_a_map).
bar(M) when not is_map_key(a, M) -> ok;
bar(_) -> error.
What will `foo/0` return? It depends. If the module is compiled
with the default compiler options, the return value will be
`ok`. If the module is compiled with the `inline` option,
the return value will be `error`.
The correct value is `error`, because the call to `is_map_key/2`
when the second argument is not a map should fail the entire
guard. That is the way other failing guards BIFs are handled.
For example:
foo() -> bar(not_a_tuple).
bar(T) when not element(1, T) -> ok;
bar(_) -> error.
`foo/0` always returns `error` (whether the code is inlined
or not).
This bug can be fixed by changing the classification of `is_map_key/2`
in the `erl_internal` module. It is now classified as a type test,
which is incorrect because type tests should not fail. Reclassifying
it as a plain guard BIF corrects the bug.
This correction also fixes the internal consistency check
failure which was reported in:
https://bugs.erlang.org/browse/ERL-699
|
|
Call test_lib:recompile/1 from init_per_suite/1 instead of
from all/0. That makes it easy to find the log from the
compilation in the log file for the init_per_suite/1 test
case.
|
|
Code such as that the following:
Val = map_get(a, Map),
Map#{a:=z} %Could be any map update
would incorrectly cause an internal consistency check failure:
Internal consistency check failed - please report this bug.
Instruction: {put_map_exact,{f,0},{x,0},{x,0},1,{list,[{atom,a},{atom,z}]}}
Error: {bad_type,{needed,map},{actual,term}}:
Update beam_validator so that it understands that the second
argument for map_get/2 is a map.
|
|
This complements the `map_get/2` guard BIF introduced in #1784.
Rationale.
`map_get/2` allows accessing map fields in guards, but it might be
problematic in more complex guard expressions, for example:
foo(X) when map_get(a, X) =:= 1 or is_list(X) -> ...
The `is_list/1` part of the guard could never succeed since the
`map_get/2` guard would fail the whole guard expression. In this
situation, this could be solved by using `;` instead of `or` to separate
the guards, but it is not possible in every case.
To solve this situation, this PR proposes a `is_map_key/2` guard that
allows to check if a map has key inside a guard before trying to access
that key. When combined with `is_map/1` this allows to construct a
purely boolean guard expression testing a value of a key in a map.
Implementation.
Given the use case motivating the introduction of this function, the PR
contains compiler optimisations that produce optimial code for the
following guard expression:
foo(X) when is_map(X) and is_map_key(a, X) and map_get(a, X) =:= 1 -> ok;
foo(_) -> error.
Given all three tests share the failure label, the `is_map_key/2` and
`is_map/2` tests are optimised away.
As with `map_get/2` the `is_map_key/2` BIF is allowed in match specs.
|
|
* 'map-get-bif' of git://github.com/michalmuskala/otp:
Introduce map_get guard-safe function
OTP-15037
|
|
Rationale
Today all compound data types except for maps can be deconstructed in guards.
For tuples we have `element/2` and for lists `hd/1` and `tl/1`. Maps are
completely opaque to guards. This means matching on maps can't be
abstracted into macros, which is often done with repetitive guards. It
also means that maps have to be always selected whole from ETS tables,
even when only one field would be enough, which creates a potential
efficiency issue.
This PR introduces an `erlang:map_get/2` guard-safe function that allows
extracting a map field in guard. An alternative to this function would be
to introduce the syntax for extracting a value from a map that was planned
in the original EEP: `Map#{Key}`.
Even outside of guards, since this function is a guard-BIF it is more
efficient than using `maps:get/2` (since it does not need to set up the
stack), and more convenient from pattern matching on the map (compare:
`#{key := Value} = Map, Value` to `map_get(key, Map)`).
Performance considerations
A common concern against adding this function is the notion that "guards
have to be fast" and ideally execute in constant time. While there are
some counterexamples (`length/1`), what is more important is the fact
that adding those functions does not change in any way the time
complexity of pattern matching - it's already possible to match on map
fields today directly in patterns - adding this ability to guards will
niether slow down or speed up the execution, it will only make certain
programs more convenient to write.
This first version is very naive and does not perform any optimizations.
|
|
Keys in map patterns are input variables, not pattern variables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
beam_validator would complain that x(1) is uninitialized
in a test_heap instruction when attempting to compile
the following code with sys_core_fold turned off:
foo(M) when not (M#{true := 0}); [M] ->
ok.
Simplified, the generated BEAM assembly code looked like
this:
test is_map BadMap x(0)
put_map_exact Fail x(0) => x(1) ...
jump BooleanStuff
BadMap:
move ok => x(1)
jump Fail
BooleanStuff:
...
move Boolean => x(2)
jump Build
Fail:
move false => x(2)
Build:
test_heap 2 3 %% x(0), x(1), x(2) must be live.
...
That is, if put_map_exact failed, control would transfer
to the label Fail without initializing x(1).
Fix that by making sure that x(1) is initilized even if
put_map_exact fails:
test is_map BadMap x(0)
put_map_exact BadLbl x(0) => x(1) ...
jump OkLbl
BadLbl:
move ok => x(1)
jump Fail
OkLbl:
jump BooleanStuff
BadMap:
move ok => x(1)
jump Fail
BooleanStuff:
...
move Boolean => x(2)
jump Build
Fail:
move false => x(2)
Build:
test_heap 2 3 %% x(0), x(1), x(2) must be live.
...
Note that this situation is rare, and that other optimization passes
(beam_dead and beam_jump in particular) will clean up this mess.
|
|
Generate code that not only is safe, but can easily be seen by
beam_validator to be safe.
|
|
|
|
* maint:
Fix crash when attempting to update a fun as if it were a map
|
|
The following example would cause an internal consistency
failure in the compiler:
f() -> ok.
update() -> (fun f/0)#{u => 42}.
The reason is that internally, v3_core will (incorrectly)
rewrite update/0 to code similar to this:
update() ->
if
is_map(fun f/0) ->
maps:update(u, 42, fun f/0)
end.
Since funs are not allowed to be created in guards, incorrect and
unsafe code would be generated.
It is easy to fix the bug. There already is a is_valid_map_src/1
function in v3_core that tests whether the argument for the map update
operation can possibly be a valid map. A fun is represented as a
variable with a special name in Core Erlang, so it would not be
recognized as unsafe. All we'll need to do to fix the bug is to look
closer at variables to ensure they don't represent funs. That will
ensure that the code is rewritten in the correct way:
update() ->
error({badmap,fun f/0})
end.
Reported-by: Thomas Arts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to EEP-43 for maps, a 'badmap' exception should be
generated when an attempt is made to update non-map term such as:
<<>>#{a=>42}
That was not implemented in the OTP 17.
José Valim suggested that we should take the opportunity to
improve the errors coming from map operations:
http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2015-February/083588.html
This commit implement better errors from map operations similar
to his suggestion.
When a map update operation (Map#{...}) or a BIF that expects a map
is given a non-map term, the exception will be:
{badmap,Term}
This kind of exception is similar to the {badfun,Term} exception
from operations that expect a fun.
When a map operation requires a key that is not present in a map,
the following exception will be raised:
{badkey,Key}
José Valim suggested that the exception should be
{badkey,Key,Map}. We decided not to do that because the map
could potentially be huge and cause problems if the error
propagated through links to other processes.
For BIFs, it could be argued that the exceptions could be simply
'badmap' and 'badkey', because the bad map and bad key can be found in
the argument list for the BIF in the stack backtrace. However, for the
map update operation (Map#{...}), the bad map or bad key will not be
included in the stack backtrace, so that information must be included
in the exception reason itself. For consistency, the BIFs should raise
the same exceptions as update operation.
If more than one key is missing, it is undefined which of
keys that will be reported in the {badkey,Key} exception.
|
|
To be sure that the compiler and BEAM virtual machine correctly
handles literals maps, we must test it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
where key 1 is less than key 1.0
|
|
|
|
A map key in a pattern would be incorrectly pretty-printed.
As an example, the pattern in:
x() ->
#{ #{ a => 3 } := 42 } = X.
would be pretty-printed as:
<~{~<~{~<'a',3>}~,42>}~
instead of:
<~{~<~{::<'a',3>}~,42>}~
When this problem has been corrected, the workaround for it in
cerl:ann_c_map/3 can be removed. The workaround was not harmless,
as it would cause the following map update to incorrectly succeed:
(#{})#{a:=1}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Map keys with large (non literal) binary keys must fail.
|
|
Increases coverage.
|
|
|
|
Coverage removed by literals.
|
|
Reported-by: José Valim
|
|
* nox/maps-beam_jump-put_map:
Properly collect labels in put_map instructions in beam_jump
|
|
* nox/maps-beam_jump:
Properly check label use in get_map_elements in beam_jump
|
|
* nox/maps-v3_codegen-sort-nil-keys:
Properly sort map pairs in v3_codegen
|
|
Reported-by: Ulf Norell
|
|
Reported-by: Ulf Norell
|
|
The Kernel instructions were not properly ordered when compiling maps with
complex values mixed in assoc and exact pairs.
Reported-by: Ulf Norell
|
|
Literal nil values aren't tagged tuple but the bare atom nil.
The function lists:sort/2 expects the passed function to return true if the first
element is less than or equal to the second, not strictly less than. The original
base clause is changed accordingly.
Reported-by: Ulf Norell
|
|
* nox/maps-fix-beam_bool-put_map:
Properly collect labels in put_map instructions in beam_bool
|
|
* nox/maps-expand-update:
Fix expansion of map update arguments
|
|
Reported-by: Ulf Norell
|
|
Reported-by: José Valim
|
