(lambda (pred lst) (let loop ((lst lst)) (cond ((null? lst) '()) ((pred (car lst)) (loop (cdr lst))) (else (cons (car lst) (loop (cdr lst)))))))You can see this type of code anywhere (although it's not tail recursive so I don't like it). And you would expect this not to have any performance issue other than stack consumption because of the recursive call.
Now, I was also thinking like that however things are bit worse. The compiled code describes everything;
;; size: 3 ;; 0: CLOSURE #<code-builder #f (2 0 0)> ;; size: 13 ;; 0: UNDEF ;; 1: PUSH ;; 2: BOX(0) !!!! IMPLICIT BOXING !!!! ;; 3: LREF_PUSH(0) ;; 4: LREF_PUSH(2) ;; 5: CLOSURE #<code-builder loop (1 0 2)> !!!! CLOSURE CREATION !!!! ;; size: 26 ;; 0: LREF(0) ;; 1: BNNULL 3 ; ((null? lst) '()) ;; 3: CONST_RET () ;; 5: FRAME 4 ;; 7: LREF_CAR_PUSH(0) ;; 8: FREF(1) ;; 9: CALL(1) ;; 10: TEST 6 ; ((pred (car lst)) (loop (cdr l ... ;; 12: LREF_CDR_PUSH(0) ;; 13: FREF(0) ;; 14: UNBOX ;; 15: LOCAL_TAIL_CALL(1) ;; 16: RET ;; 17: LREF_CAR_PUSH(0) ;; 18: FRAME 5 ;; 20: LREF_CDR_PUSH(0) ;; 21: FREF(0) ;; 22: UNBOX ;; 23: LOCAL_CALL(1) ;; 24: CONS ;; 25: RET ;; 7: LSET(2) ;; 8: LREF_PUSH(1) ;; 9: LREF(2) ;; 10: UNBOX ;; 11: LOCAL_TAIL_CALL(1) ;; 12: RET ;; 2: RETI've put comments where it causes performance issue.
The first one, implicit boxing, is because the
loopis transformed to letrec and it needs to refer
loopitself inside of it. The second one is creating a procedure each time the top procedure (I haven't named it though) is called because it has a free variable pred inside. Sounds reasonable? No, it doesn't at all to me now. If you write a piece of code with named let, then you would expect the calling named procedure would be compiled to just a jump. However this is compiled to a procedure call. Well, on the other hand this is not a tail recursive call so you wouldn't expect to be a jump though. Actually if the code was tail recursive then compiler would compile it to a simple jump without implicit boxing and creating a closure.
Now, then should users always be careful or adjust their code how compiler compiles to maximumised performance instructions? My answer is yes and no. In above case, I expect at least compiler should emit non implicit boxing code. In general, compiler should be smart enough to emit good quality code. Then problem is how? ... that's something I need to think, though.