-158:
- Compiling the following code causes SBCL 0.7.2 to bug. This only
- happens with optimization enabled, and only when the loop variable is
- being incremented by more than 1.
- (defun foo (array)
- (declare (optimize (safety 0) (space 0) (debug 0) (speed 3)))
- (loop for i from 0 to 10 by 2
- do (foo (svref array i))) (svref array (1+ i)))
- (reported by Eric Marsden sbcl-devel 2002-04-15)
-
-159:
- * (lisp-implementation-version)
- "0.7.2.6"
- * (defstruct (foo
- (:constructor make-foo (&key (bar nil bar-p)
- &aux (baz (if bar-p bar 2)))))
-
- bar
- baz)
- debugger invoked on condition of type SB-KERNEL::ARG-COUNT-ERROR:
- error while parsing arguments to DESTRUCTURING-BIND:
- invalid number of elements in
- (BAR NIL BAR-P)
- to satisfy lambda list
- (SB-KERNEL::WOT &OPTIONAL (SB-KERNEL::DEF NIL SB-KERNEL::DEF-P)):
- between 1 and 2 expected, but 3 found
- (reported by Christophe Rhodes and Martin Atzmueller sbcl-devel
- 2002-05-15)
-
-160:
- USER-HOMEDIR-PATHNAME returns a pathname that SBCL can't do anything
- with. Probably we should return an absolute physical pathname
- instead. (Reported by Peter van Eynde sbcl-devel 2002-03-29)
-
-161:
- Typep on certain SATISFIES types doesn't take account of the fact
- that the function could cause an error; e.g. (TYPEP #\! '(SATISFIES
- FBOUNDP)) raises an error when it should return NIL.
+162:
+ (reported by Robert E. Brown 2002-04-16)
+ When a function is called with too few arguments, causing the
+ debugger to be entered, the uninitialized slots in the bad call frame
+ seem to cause GCish problems, being interpreted as tagged data even
+ though they're not. In particular, executing ROOM in the
+ debugger at that point causes AVER failures:
+ * (machine-type)
+ "X86"
+ * (lisp-implementation-version)
+ "0.7.2.12"
+ * (typep 10)
+ ...
+ 0] (room)
+ ...
+ failed AVER: "(SAP= CURRENT END)"
+ (Christophe Rhodes reports that this doesn't occur on the SPARC, which
+ isn't too surprising since there are many differences in stack
+ implementation and GC conservatism between the X86 and other ports.)
+
+165:
+ Array types with element-types of some unknown type are falsely being
+ assumed to be of type (ARRAY T) by the compiler in some cases. The
+ following code demonstrates the problem:
+
+ (defun foo (x)
+ (declare (type (vector bar) x))
+ (aref x 1))
+ (deftype bar () 'single-float)
+ (foo (make-array 3 :element-type 'bar))
+ -> TYPE-ERROR "The value #(0.0 0.0 0.0) is not of type (VECTOR BAR)."
+ (typep (make-array 3 :element-type 'bar) '(vector bar))
+ -> T
+
+ The easy solution is to make the functions which depend on knowing
+ the upgraded-array-element-type (in compiler/array-tran and
+ compiler/generic/vm-tran as of sbcl-0.7.3.x) be slightly smarter about
+ unknown types; an alternative is to have the
+ specialized-element-type slot in the ARRAY-TYPE structure be
+ *WILD-TYPE* for UNKNOWN-TYPE element types.
+
+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.
+
+172:
+ sbcl's treatment of at least macro lambda lists is too permissive;
+ e.g., in sbcl-0.7.3.7:
+ (defmacro foo (&rest rest bar) `(,bar ,rest))
+ (macroexpand '(foo quux zot)) -> (QUUX (QUUX ZOT))
+ whereas section 3.4.4 of the CLHS doesn't allow required parameters
+ to come after the rest argument.
+
+173:
+ The compiler sometimes tries to constant-fold expressions before
+ it checks to see whether they can be reached. This can lead to
+ bogus warnings about errors in the constant folding, e.g. in code
+ like
+ (WHEN X
+ (WRITE-STRING (> X 0) "+" "0"))
+ compiled in a context where the compiler can prove that X is NIL,
+ and the compiler complains that (> X 0) causes a type error because
+ NIL isn't a valid argument to #'>. Until sbcl-0.7.4.10 or so this
+ caused a full WARNING, which made the bug really annoying because then
+ COMPILE and COMPILE-FILE returned FAILURE-P=T for perfectly legal
+ code. Since then the warning has been downgraded to STYLE-WARNING,
+ so it's still a bug but at least it's a little less annoying.