Every mark it left was an addition, and addition commutes, so a backend that
ran the defers outermost-first produced byte-identical output and the row that
was supposed to be watching the order could not have told. The claim was in the
comments and not in the numbers. cleanup.flan already had the device for this —
a shift rather than a sum — so the log here is a digit trace now, and the two
frames under a catch read 12 where a wrong order reads 21.
Rewriting the trace made room for the three behaviours that worked and nothing
pinned. A return inside a clause is an ordinary return from the function that
wrote the form, because that is where a clause runs: it leaves through the
function's own exit, runs the defer registered there after the two the unwind
already ran, and leaves the handler stack empty behind it, which the bare
signal that follows in main is the check on. A defer inside a clause is refused
for the reason every nested form is refused one. And a handler-case inside a
defer works, because a defer may not start a transfer that leaves it and this
one begins and ends its own.
The program is registered with the sanitizers, where the interesting failure is
not the heap but a handler or restart frame left on a stack pointing into an
alloca that has gone — an output comparison cannot see that until something
much later calls through it. It is clean; it was also leaking sixteen bytes out
of the vector main allocates to prove the allocator context came back, which is
the test's own litter and is freed now.
docs/PORTING.md ranked handler-case as one site handler-bind covers. It still
is one site, and handler-bind still covers it, but it is no longer the closer
translation: a catch block is assumed everywhere it is written to see the
locals around it, and only the clause that runs at the form does.
The handler clauses are lifted left to right rather than by List.map, whose
order is unspecified. Each lift names itself after the count already on the
list, so an order nobody chose would number the clauses of one handler-bind
differently between builds, and those names go into a redefinition module.
The unwinding handler, which spec-conditions.md named and left unwritten while
it asked whether the thing should be a macro over the two operators that were
already here. It should. (handler-case B [(T [c] A)]) is checked as
(restart-case (handler-bind [(T [c] (invoke-restart 'R c))] B) (R [c T] A))
with R a name the form makes up for itself, which is Common Lisp's own
definition of the operator and means neither backend needed a line.
What that buys is not economy, it is the correctness of the parts nobody can
see. The defers between the signal and the form run, and the allocator a
with-allocator rebound is put back, because a transfer already does both for
every frame it leaves. The body and every clause agree on one type, because a
restart-case's body and clauses already do, and a clause that disagrees is
refused with the same message an if with disagreeing arms gets. A condition no
clause lists installs no frame that matches it and goes on outward untouched.
A clause sees the establishing function's locals, which a handler-bind clause
cannot, because a restart clause runs where it was written.
The body comes first and the clauses after it, the opposite of handler-bind's
order: one reads as something put around a body and the other as a body with
answers hung off the end of it. The restart the two halves meet over is named
after the function and numbered within it, and it has to be unique per form,
because two nested handler-cases sharing a name would have the inner frame
shadow the outer one and land a condition at the wrong place.
The refusals name handler-case rather than the machinery underneath it, which
is why check_handler_bind and the restart clauses now take the word the reader
wrote. A break loop entered under a handler-case still lists the made-up
restart, and taking it there is refused loudly rather than answered wrongly;
hiding it would mean a field in a frame layout spelled out in three files.
The survey program runs the same under LLVM, at -O0 and under --x86: normal
completion, a caught condition, one nobody listed passing through with the body
carrying on, both defers on the way out, the two nestings against handler-bind,
a clause that signals and is caught outside the form it belongs to, and a
with-allocator whose restore is on the transfer path.
