Since approximately forever, sbcl has advertised the possibility of tracing individual methods of a generic function by passing :methods t as an argument to trace . Until recently, tracing methods was only supported using the :encapsulate nil style of tracing, modifying the compiled code for function objects directly.

For a variety of reasons, the alternative :encapsulate t implementation of tracing, effectively wrapping the function with some code to run around it, is more robust. One problem with :encapsulate nil tracing is that if the object being traced is a closure, the modification of the function's code will affect all of the closures, not just any single one – closures are distinct objects with distinct closed-over environments, but they share the same execuable code, so modifying one of them modifies all of them. However, the implementation of method tracing I wrote in 2005 – essentially, finding and tracing the method functions and the method fast-functions (on which more later) – was fundamentally incompatible with encapsulation; the method functions are essentially never called by name by CLOS, but by more esoteric means.

What are those esoteric means, I hear you ask?! I'm glad I can hear you. The Metaobject Protocol defines a method calling convention, such that method calls receive as two arguments firstly: the entire argument list as the method body would expect to handle; and secondly: the list of sorted applicable next methods, such that the first element is the method which should be invoked if the method uses call-next-method . So a method function conforming to this protocol has to:

destructure its first argument to bind the method parameters to the arguments given; if call-next-method is used, reconstruct an argument list (in general, because the arguments to the next method need not be the same as the arguments to the existing method) before calling the next method’s method-function with the reconstructed argument list and the rest of the next methods.

But! For a given set of actual arguments, for that call, the set of applicable methods is known; the precedence order is known; and, with a bit of bookkeeping in the implementation of defmethod , whether any individual method actually calls call-next-method is known. So it is possible, at the point of calling a generic-function with a set of arguments, to know not only the first applicable method, but in fact all the applicable methods, their ordering, and the combination of those methods that will actually get called (which is determined by whether methods invoke call-next-method and also by the generic function’s method combination).

Therefore, a sophisticated (and by “sophisticated” here I mean “written by the wizards at Xerox PARC)”) implementation of CLOS can compile an effective method for a given call, resolve all the next-method calls, perform some extra optimizations on slot-value and slot accessors, improve the calling convention (we no longer need the list of next methods, but only a single next effective-method, so we can spread the argument list once more), and cache the resulting function for future use. So the one-time cost for each set of applicable methods generates an optimized effective method, making use of fast-method-functions with the improved calling convention.

Here's the trick, then: this effective method is compiled into a chain of method-call and fast-method-call objects, which call their embedded functions. This, then, is ripe for encapsulation; to allow method tracing, all we need to do is arrange at compute-effective-method time that those embedded functions are wrapped in code that performs the tracing, and that any attempt to untrace the generic function (or to modify the tracing parameters) reinitializes the generic function instance, which clears all the effective method caches. And then Hey Bob, Your Uncle’s Presto! and everything works.

(defgeneric foo (x) (:method (x) 3)) (defmethod foo :around ((x fixnum)) (1+ (call-next-method))) (defmethod foo ((x integer)) (* 2 (call-next-method))) (defmethod foo ((x float)) (* 3 (call-next-method))) (defmethod foo :before ((x single-float)) 'single) (defmethod foo :after ((x double-float)) 'double)

Here's a generic function foo with moderately complex methods. How can we work out what is going on? Call the method tracer!

CL-USER> (foo 2.0d0) 0: (FOO 2.0d0) 1: ((SB-PCL::COMBINED-METHOD FOO) 2.0d0) 2: ((METHOD FOO (FLOAT)) 2.0d0) 3: ((METHOD FOO (T)) 2.0d0) 3: (METHOD FOO (T)) returned 3 2: (METHOD FOO (FLOAT)) returned 9 2: ((METHOD FOO :AFTER (DOUBLE-FLOAT)) 2.0d0) 2: (METHOD FOO :AFTER (DOUBLE-FLOAT)) returned DOUBLE 1: (SB-PCL::COMBINED-METHOD FOO) returned 9 0: FOO returned 9 9

This mostly works. It doesn’t quite handle all cases, specifically when the CLOS user adds a method and implements call-next-method for themselves:

(add-method #'foo (make-instance 'standard-method :qualifiers '() :specializers (list (find-class 'fixnum)) :lambda-list '(x) :function (lambda (args nms) (+ 2 (funcall (sb-mop:method-function (first nms)) args (rest nms)))))) CL-USER> (foo 3) 0: (FOO 3) 1: ((METHOD FOO :AROUND (FIXNUM)) 3) 2: ((METHOD FOO (FIXNUM)) 3) 2: (METHOD FOO (FIXNUM)) returned 8 1: (METHOD FOO :AROUND (FIXNUM)) returned 9 0: FOO returned 9 9

In this trace, we have lost the method trace from the direct call to the method-function , and calls that that function makes; this is the cost of performing the trace in the effective method, though a mitigating factor is that we have visibility of method combination (through the (sb-pcl::combined-method foo) line in the trace above). It would probably be possible to do the encapsulation in the method object itself, by modifying the function and the fast-function, but this requires rather more book-keeping and (at least theoretically) breaks the object identity: we do not have licence to modify the function stored in a method object. So, for now, sbcl has this imperfect solution for users to try (expected to be in sbcl-1.4.9, probably released towards the end of June).

(I can't really believe it’s taken me twelve years to do this. Other implementations have had this working for years. Sorry!)