ISHIKAWA: why did exit injection still need compile-time knowledge? Because the
body-helper wrapper was only emitted when codegen already knew an exit
construct existed. The wrapper being conditional was the cause, not the wrapper
being necessary.
PREDICTIONS AND RESULTS
P1 exit becomes runtime-bindable TRUE returns 14, bound
after the build
P2 codegen shrinks TRUE 5094 -> 5044
P3 cost 5-15% from a call frame on every fn FALSE 0.37s -> 0.38s, ~3%
P4 fixpoint holds TRUE
Every fn now gets a body helper and a wrapper. It has to be unconditional:
early returns must route through something for an exit construct to observe
them, and codegen cannot know which fns will be bound after the binary exists.
Removed with the machinery: declare_exit, decorator_exit, cg_exit_target,
cg_exit_construct, and the injects_at_exit scanner branch.
Two controls failed and were rewritten rather than repaired --
no-exit-construct-emits-no-wrapper asserted the optimisation this removes, so
it is now inverted. The integration harness gained a seventh assertion: an exit
construct declared after the build replaces the result.
99/99 native, 7/7 integration, fixpoint gen2==gen3.
The seam's whole claim is that a construct declared AFTER a binary exists
applies to that already-built program. compile_capture only sees emitted text,
so it structurally cannot check this: it needs a built binary, a linked target,
and an environment. Verified by hand until now, which is the standing problem
this session has been about.
tests/integration/seam_binding.sh builds a probe from El source containing no
construct at all, links a target that El never references, and asserts:
ok unbound program is unaffected
ok a construct declared AFTER the build applies
ok a construct declared after the build can REFUSE
ok an unlinked target is skipped, not fatal
ok a binding for a different fn does not fire
ok two constructs compose on one crossing
6 assertions, 6 passed, 0 failed
The eight controls that failed after the strip were replaced, not repaired.
They asserted compile-time emission of capability that moved to runtime;
contorting them would have kept an assertion whose subject no longer exists.
Three took their place, asserting the emitted shape, and the behaviour they
used to cover is now the integration harness's job -- which is the honest
division, since the shape and the behaviour are no longer the same fact.
99/99 native compiler tests pass. Fixpoint holds.
bigmerge