0.pre8.16:

[sbcl.git] / BUGS

diff --git a/BUGS b/BUGS
index 4dd6c3a..93d9f25 100644 (file)
--- a/BUGS
+++ b/BUGS
@@ -1166,15 +1166,6 @@ WORKAROUND:
   would be to put the check between evaluation of arguments, but it
   could be tricky to check result types of PROG1, IF etc.
 
   would be to put the check between evaluation of arguments, but it
   could be tricky to check result types of PROG1, IF etc.
 

-228: "function-lambda-expression problems"
-  in sbcl-0.7.9.6x, from the REPL:
-    * (progn (declaim (inline foo)) (defun foo (x) x))
-    FOO
-    * (function-lambda-expression #'foo)
-    (SB-C:LAMBDA-WITH-LEXENV NIL NIL NIL (X) (BLOCK FOO X)), NIL, FOO
-  but this first return value is not suitable for input to FUNCTION or
-  COMPILE, as required by ANSI.
-

 229:
   (subtypep 'function '(function)) => nil, t.
 
 229:
   (subtypep 'function '(function)) => nil, t.
 

@@ -1201,9 +1192,6 @@ WORKAROUND:
         (+ x 2)))
   (foo 1d0 5) => segmentation violation
 
         (+ x 2)))
   (foo 1d0 5) => segmentation violation
 

-234:
-  (fixed in sbcl-0.7.10.36)
-

 235: "type system and inline expansion"
   a.
   (declaim (ftype (function (cons) number) acc))
 235: "type system and inline expansion"
   a.
   (declaim (ftype (function (cons) number) acc))

@@ -1257,6 +1245,40 @@ WORKAROUND:
      calls of the form (TYPEP 1 'INTEGER NIL), even though this is
      just as optimizeable as (TYPEP 1 'INTEGER).
 
      calls of the form (TYPEP 1 'INTEGER NIL), even though this is
      just as optimizeable as (TYPEP 1 'INTEGER).
 

+238: "REPL compiler overenthusiasm for CLOS code"
+  From the REPL,
+    * (defclass foo () ())
+    * (defmethod bar ((x foo) (foo foo)) (call-next-method))
+  causes approximately 100 lines of code deletion notes.  Some
+  discussion on this issue happened under the title 'Three "interesting"
+  bugs in PCL', resulting in a fix for this oververbosity from the
+  compiler proper; however, the problem persists in the interactor
+  because the notion of original source is not preserved: for the
+  compiler, the original source of the above expression is (DEFMETHOD
+  BAR ((X FOO) (FOO FOO)) (CALL-NEXT-METHOD)), while by the time the
+  compiler gets its hands on the code needing compilation from the REPL,
+  it has been macroexpanded several times.
+
+241: "DEFCLASS mysteriously remembers uninterned accessor names."
+  (from tonyms on #lisp IRC 2003-02-25)
+  In sbcl-0.7.12.55, typing
+    (defclass foo () ((bar :accessor foo-bar)))
+    (profile foo-bar)
+    (unintern 'foo-bar)
+    (defclass foo () ((bar :accessor foo-bar)))
+  gives the error message
+    "#:FOO-BAR already names an ordinary function or a macro."
+  So it's somehow checking the uninterned old accessor name instead
+  of the new requested accessor name, which seems broken to me (WHN).
+
+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.
+

 DEFUNCT CATEGORIES OF BUGS
   IR1-#:
     These labels were used for bugs related to the old IR1 interpreter.
 DEFUNCT CATEGORIES OF BUGS
   IR1-#:
     These labels were used for bugs related to the old IR1 interpreter.