After the removal of the InputAccessor::fetchToStore() method, the
only remaining functionality in InputAccessor was `fingerprint` and
`getLastModified()`, and there is no reason to keep those in a
separate class.
we now keep not a table of all positions, but a table of all origins and
their sizes. position indices are now direct pointers into the virtual
concatenation of all parsed contents. this slightly reduces memory usage
and time spent in the parser, at the cost of not being able to report
positions if the total input size exceeds 4GiB. this limit is not unique
to nix though, rustc and clang also limit their input to 4GiB (although
at least clang refuses to process inputs that are larger, we will not).
this new 4GiB limit probably will not cause any problems for quite a
while, all of nixpkgs together is less than 100MiB in size and already
needs over 700MiB of memory and multiple seconds just to parse. 4GiB
worth of input will easily take multiple minutes and over 30GiB of
memory without even evaluating anything. if problems *do* arise we can
probably recover the old table-based system by adding some tracking to
Pos::Origin (or increasing the size of PosIdx outright), but for time
being this looks like more complexity than it's worth.
since we now need to read the entire input again to determine the
line/column of a position we'll make unsafeGetAttrPos slightly lazy:
mostly the set it returns is only used to determine the file of origin
of an attribute, not its exact location. the thunks do not add
measurable runtime overhead.
notably this change is necessary to allow changing the parser since
apparently nothing supports nix's very idiosyncratic line ending choice
of "anything goes", making it very hard to calculate line/column
positions in the parser (while byte offsets are very easy).
desugaring inherit-from to syntactic duplication of the source expr also
duplicates side effects of the source expr (such as trace calls) and
expensive computations (such as derivationStrict).
While preparing PRs like #9753, I've had to change error messages in
dozens of code paths. It would be nice if instead of
EvalError("expected 'boolean' but found '%1%'", showType(v))
we could write
TypeError(v, "boolean")
or similar. Then, changing the error message could be a mechanical
refactor with the compiler pointing out places the constructor needs to
be changed, rather than the error-prone process of grepping through the
codebase. Structured errors would also help prevent the "same" error
from having multiple slightly different messages, and could be a first
step towards error codes / an error index.
This PR reworks the exception infrastructure in `libexpr` to
support exception types with different constructor signatures than
`BaseError`. Actually refactoring the exceptions to use structured data
will come in a future PR (this one is big enough already, as it has to
touch every exception in `libexpr`).
The core design is in `eval-error.hh`. Generally, errors like this:
state.error("'%s' is not a string", getAttrPathStr())
.debugThrow<TypeError>()
are transformed like this:
state.error<TypeError>("'%s' is not a string", getAttrPathStr())
.debugThrow()
The type annotation has moved from `ErrorBuilder::debugThrow` to
`EvalState::error`.
these symbols are used a *lot*, so it makes sense to cache them. this
mostly increases clarity of the code (however clear one may wish to call
the parser desugaring here), but it also provides a small performance
benefit.
there's no reason the parser itself should be doing semantic analysis
like bindVars. split this bit apart (retaining the previous name in
EvalState) and have the parser really do *only* parsing, decoupled from
EvalState.
most instances of this being used do not refer to the "current"
position, sometimes not even to one reasonably close by. it could also
be called `makePos` instead, but `at` seems clear in context.
ParserState better describes what this struct really is. the parser
really does modify its state (most notably position and symbol tables),
so calling it that rather than obliquely "data" (which implies being
input only) makes sense.
