+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.)
+
+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.
+
+260:
+ a.
+ (let* ((s (gensym))
+ (t1 (specifier-type s)))
+ (eval `(defstruct ,s))
+ (type= t1 (specifier-type s)))
+ => NIL, NIL
+
+ (fixed in 0.8.1.24)
+
+ b. The same for CSUBTYPEP.
+
+261:
+ * (let () (list (the (values &optional fixnum) (eval '(values)))))
+ debugger invoked on condition of type TYPE-ERROR:
+ The value NIL is not of type FIXNUM.
+
+262: "yet another bug in inline expansion of local functions"
+ Compiler fails on
+
+ (defun foo (x y)
+ (declare (integer x y))
+ (+ (block nil
+ (flet ((xyz (u)
+ (declare (integer u))
+ (if (> (1+ (the unsigned-byte u)) 0)
+ (+ 1 u)
+ (return (+ 38 (cos (/ u 78)))))))
+ (declare (inline xyz))
+ (return-from foo
+ (* (funcall (eval #'xyz) x)
+ (if (> x 30)
+ (funcall (if (> x 5) #'xyz #'identity)
+ (+ x 13))
+ 38)))))
+ (sin (* x y))))
+
+ Urgh... It's time to write IR1-copier.
+
+262:
+ In 0.8.1.32:
+
+ * (ensure-generic-function 'foo)
+ #<STANDARD-GENERIC-FUNCTION FOO (0)>
+ * (defmethod foo (x) x)
+ debugger invoked on condition of type SIMPLE-ERROR:
+ The generic function #<STANDARD-GENERIC-FUNCTION FOO (0)> takes 0 required
+ arguments; was asked to find a method with specializers (#<BUILT-IN-CLASS T>)
+
+ AMOP seems to say that it should work (first ADD-METHOD initializes
+ GF lambda list).
+
+264:
+ (reported by <dsk> on #lisp 2003-07-16)
+
+ (progv '(foo) '(1)
+ (eval '(symbol-macrolet ((foo 3))
+ (declare (special foo))
+ foo)))
+
+ does not signal an error.
+
+ (fixed in 0.8.1.37)
+
+265:
+ SB-EXT:RUN-PROGRAM is currently non-functional on Linux/PPC;
+ attempting to use it leads to segmentation violations. This is
+ probably because of a bogus implementation of
+ os_restore_fp_control().
+