+166:
+ Compiling
+ (in-package :cl-user)
+ (defstruct uustk)
+ (defmethod permanentize ((uustk uustk))
+ (flet ((frob (hash-table test-for-deletion)
+ )
+ (obj-entry.stale? (oe)
+ (destructuring-bind (key . datum) oe
+ (declare (type simple-vector key))
+ (deny0 (void? datum))
+ (some #'stale? key))))
+ (declare (inline frob obj-entry.stale?))
+ (frob (uustk.args-hash->obj-alist uustk)
+ #'obj-entry.stale?)
+ (frob (uustk.hash->memoized-objs-list uustk)
+ #'objs.stale?))
+ (call-next-method))
+ in sbcl-0.7.3.11 causes an assertion failure,
+ failed AVER:
+ "(NOT
+(AND (NULL (BLOCK-SUCC B))
+ (NOT (BLOCK-DELETE-P B))
+ (NOT (EQ B (COMPONENT-HEAD #)))))"
+
+167:
+ In sbcl-0.7.3.11, compiling the (illegal) code
+ (in-package :cl-user)
+ (defmethod prove ((uustk uustk))
+ (zap ((frob () nil))
+ (frob)))
+ gives the (not terribly clear) error message
+ ; caught ERROR:
+ ; (during macroexpansion of (DEFMETHOD PROVE ...))
+ ; can't get template for (FROB NIL NIL)
+ The problem seems to be that the code walker used by the DEFMETHOD
+ macro is unhappy with the illegal syntax in the method body, and
+ is giving an unclear error message.
+
+168:
+ (reported by Dan Barlow on sbcl-devel 2002-05-10)
+ In sbcl-0.7.3.12, doing
+ (defstruct foo bar baz)
+ (compile nil (lambda (x) (or x (foo-baz x))))
+ gives an error
+ debugger invoked on condition of type SB-INT:BUG:
+ full call to SB-KERNEL:%INSTANCE-REF
+ This is probably a bug in SBCL itself. [...]
+ Since this is a reasonable user error, it shouldn't be reported as
+ an SBCL bug.
+
+171:
+ (reported by Pierre Mai while investigating bug 47):
+ (DEFCLASS FOO () ((A :SILLY T)))
+ signals a SIMPLE-ERROR, not a PROGRAM-ERROR.
+