A related change would be to annotate ICR with information about tail-recursion relations. What we would do is add a slot to the node structure that points to the corresponding Tail-Info when a node is in a TR position. This annotation would be made in a final ICR pass that runs after cleanup code is generated (part of environment analysis). When true, the node is in a true TR position (modulo return-convention incompatibility). When we determine return conventions, we null out the tail-p slots in XEP calls or known calls where we decided not to preserve tail-recursion.
In this phase, we also check for changes in the dynamic binding environment that require cleanup code to be generated. We just check for changes in the Continuation-Cleanup on local control transfers. If it changes from an inner dynamic context to an outer one that is in the same environment, then we emit code to clean up the dynamic bindings between the old and new continuation. We represent the result of cleanup detection to the back end by interposing a new block containing a call to a funny function. Local exits from CATCH or UNWIND-PROTECT are detected in the same way.
The primary activity in environment analysis is the annotation of ICR with environment structures describing where variables are allocated and what values the environment closes over.
Each lambda points to the environment where its variables are allocated, and the environments point back. We always allocate the environment at the Bind node for the sole non-let lambda in the environment, so there is a close relationship between environments and functions. Each “real function” (i.e. not a LET) has a corresponding environment.
We attempt to share the same environment among as many lambdas as possible so that unnecessary environment manipulation is not done. During environment analysis the only optimization of this sort is realizing that a Let (a lambda with no Return node) cannot need its own environment, since there is no way that it can return and discover that its old values have been clobbered.
When the function is called, values from other environments may need to be made available in the function’s environment. These values are said to be “closed over”.
Even if a value is not referenced in a given environment, it may need to be closed over in that environment so that it can be passed to a called function that does reference the value. When we discover that a value must be closed over by a function, we must close over the value in all the environments where that function is referenced. This applies to all references, not just local calls, since at other references we must have the values on hand so that we can build a closure. This propagation must be applied recursively, since the value must also be available in *those* functions’ callers.
If a closure reference is known to be “safe” (not an upward funarg), then the closure structure may be allocated on the stack.
Closure analysis deals only with closures over values, while Common Lisp requires closures over variables. The difference only becomes significant when variables are set. If a variable is not set, then we can freely make copies of it without keeping track of where they are. When a variable is set, we must maintain a single value cell, or at least the illusion thereof. We achieve this by creating a heap-allocated “value cell” structure for each set variable that is closed over. The pointer to this value cell is passed around as the “value” corresponding to that variable. References to the variable must explicitly indirect through the value cell.
When we are scanning over the lambdas in the component, we also check for bound but not referenced variables.
Environment analysis emits cleanup code for local exits and markers for non-local exits.
A non-local exit is a control transfer from one environment to another. In a non-local exit, we must close over the continuation that we transfer to so that the exiting function can find its way back. We indicate the need to close a continuation by placing the continuation structure in the closure and also pushing it on a list in the environment structure for the target of the exit. [### To be safe, we would treat the continuation as a set closure variable so that we could invalidate it when we leave the dynamic extent of the exit point. Transferring control to a meaningless stack pointer would be apt to cause horrible death.]
Each local control transfer may require dynamic state such as special bindings to be undone. We represent cleanup actions by funny function calls in a new block linked in as an implicit MV-PROG1.