[erlang-bugs] Core Erlang compilation problem

Lars-Åke Fredlund <>
Thu Jul 9 14:21:50 CEST 2009


Bjorn Gustavsson wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Lars-Åke Fredlund<> wrote:
>   
>> Lars-Åke Fredlund wrote:
>>     
>>> The attached Core Erlang module causes the compiler to crash:
>>>
>>>       
> [...]
>   
>>> but core_lint also complains:
>>>
>>> 2> compile:file("test.core",[return_errors, from_core, clint]).
>>> {error,[{test,[{core_lint,{illegal_guard,{stop_mp,2}}}]}],
>>>      [{"no_file",[{none,sys_core_fold,result_ignored}]}]}
>>>
>>> Probably it is just a stupid oversight on my part, but I cannot see why
>>> the code is not ok. Simply removing the second case clause, for instance,
>>> causes the compilation to work?
>>>       
>
> It is far from obvious, but the problem is the following case statement
>
>              case <> of
>                <> when
>                  call 'erlang':'is_record'(S,'t',14) ->
>                    let <_cor6> = call 'erlang':'element'(7, S) in 'true'
>              end
>
> which is illegal Core Erlang code, because there *must* always be a
> clause that will be executed (a case statement in Core Erlang is not
> allowed to fall through). The Core Erlang optimizer (sys_core_fold)
> assumes that it is passed correct code, and it knows that if a case
> only has one clause, it *must* match, and therefore the entire case
> can be reduced to
>
>              let <_cor6> = call 'erlang':'element'(7, S) in 'true'
>
> That is further optimized to
>
> 	    do  call 'erlang':'element'(7, S)
> 	          'true'
>
> This sequence is inside a guard, and currently the code generator
> correctly does not handle a call to BIF when the return value is
> ignored in a guard. It's low priority for me to fix that problem,
> since it cannot happen (AFAIK) when compiling an Erlang module.
>
> I suggest that you add a default clause to the end of the case to take
> care of the case that S is not a record of the correct type.
>
> /Bjorn
>
>   
Ahh. I had forgot that cases must always have matching clauses. Nice 
problem analysis too.
I will change the way the code is generated following your suggestion.

Thanks,
Lars-Ake




More information about the erlang-bugs mailing list