+242: "WRITE-SEQUENCE suboptimality"
+ (observed from clx performance)
+ In sbcl-0.7.13, WRITE-SEQUENCE of a sequence of type
+ (SIMPLE-ARRAY (UNSIGNED-BYTE 8) (*)) on a stream with element-type
+ (UNSIGNED-BYTE 8) will write to the stream one byte at a time,
+ rather than writing the sequence in one go, leading to severe
+ performance degradation.
+
+243: "STYLE-WARNING overenthusiasm for unused variables"
+ (observed from clx compilation)
+ In sbcl-0.7.14, in the presence of the macros
+ (DEFMACRO FOO (X) `(BAR ,X))
+ (DEFMACRO BAR (X) (DECLARE (IGNORABLE X)) 'NIL)
+ somewhat surprising style warnings are emitted for
+ (COMPILE NIL '(LAMBDA (Y) (FOO Y))):
+ ; in: LAMBDA (Y)
+ ; (LAMBDA (Y) (FOO Y))
+ ;
+ ; caught STYLE-WARNING:
+ ; The variable Y is defined but never used.
+
+245: bugs in disassembler
+ a. On X86 an immediate operand for IMUL is printed incorrectly.
+ b. On X86 operand size prefix is not recognized.
+
+248: "reporting errors in type specifier syntax"
+ (TYPEP 1 '(SYMBOL NIL)) says something about "unknown type
+ specifier".
+
+251:
+ (defun foo (&key (a :x))
+ (declare (fixnum a))
+ a)
+
+ does not cause a warning. (BTW: old SBCL issued a warning, but for a
+ function, which was never called!)
+
+256:
+ Compiler does not emit warnings for
+
+ a. (lambda () (svref (make-array 8 :adjustable t) 1))
+
+ b. (lambda (x)
+ (list (let ((y (the real x)))
+ (unless (floatp y) (error ""))
+ y)
+ (integer-length x)))
+
+ c. (lambda (x)
+ (declare (optimize (debug 0)))
+ (declare (type vector x))
+ (list (fill-pointer x)
+ (svref x 1)))
+
+257:
+ Complex array type does not have corresponding type specifier.
+
+ This is a problem because the compiler emits optimization notes when
+ you use a non-simple array, and without a type specifier for hairy
+ array types, there's no good way to tell it you're doing it
+ intentionally so that it should shut up and just compile the code.
+
+ Another problem is confusing error message "asserted type ARRAY
+ conflicts with derived type (VALUES SIMPLE-VECTOR &OPTIONAL)" during
+ compiling (LAMBDA (V) (VALUES (SVREF V 0) (VECTOR-POP V))).
+
+ The last problem is that when type assertions are converted to type
+ checks, types are represented with type specifiers, so we could lose
+ complex attribute. (Now this is probably not important, because
+ currently checks for complex arrays seem to be performed by
+ callees.)
+
+258:
+ (fixed in 0.8.1.3)
+
+259:
+ (compile nil '(lambda () (aref (make-array 0) 0))) compiles without
+ warning. Analogous cases with the index and length being equal and
+ greater than 0 are warned for; the problem here seems to be that the
+ type required for an array reference of this type is (INTEGER 0 (0))
+ which is canonicalized to NIL.
+