+ ;; lutex support
+ ;;
+ ;; While on linux we are able to use futexes for our locking
+ ;; primitive, on other platforms we don't have this luxury. NJF's
+ ;; lutexes present a locking API similar to the futex-based API that
+ ;; allows for sb-thread support on x86 OS X, Solaris and
+ ;; FreeBSD.
+ ;;
+ ; :sb-lutex
+
+ ;; On some operating systems the FS segment register (used for SBCL's
+ ;; thread local storage) is not reliably preserved in signal
+ ;; handlers, so we need to restore its value from the pthread thread
+ ;; local storage.
+ ; :restore-tls-segment-register-from-tls
+
+ ;; On some x86oid operating systems (darwin) SIGTRAP is not reliably
+ ;; delivered for the INT3 instruction, so we use the UD2 instruction
+ ;; which generates SIGILL instead.
+ ; :ud2-breakpoints
+
+ ;; Support for detection of unportable code (when applied to the
+ ;; COMMON-LISP package, or SBCL-internal pacakges) or bad-neighbourly
+ ;; code (when applied to user-level packages), relating to material
+ ;; alteration to packages or to bindings in symbols in packages.
+ :sb-package-locks
+
+ ;; Support for the entirety of the 21-bit character space defined by
+ ;; the Unicode consortium, rather than the classical 8-bit ISO-8859-1
+ ;; character set.
+ :sb-unicode
+
+ ;; Support for a full evaluator that can execute all the CL special
+ ;; forms, as opposed to the traditional SBCL evaluator which called
+ ;; COMPILE for everything complicated.
+ :sb-eval
+
+ ;; Record source location information for variables, classes, conditions,
+ ;; packages, etc. Gives much better information on M-. in Slime, but
+ ;; increases core size by about 100kB.
+ :sb-source-locations
+
+ ;; Record xref data for SBCL internals. This can be rather useful for
+ ;; people who want to develop on SBCL itself because it'll make M-?
+ ;; (slime-edit-uses) work which lists call/expansion/etc. sites.
+ ;; It'll increase the core size by major 5-6mB, though.
+ ; :sb-xref-for-internals
+
+ ;; This affects the definition of a lot of things in bignum.lisp. It
+ ;; doesn't seem to be documented anywhere what systems it might apply
+ ;; to. It doesn't seem to be needed for X86 systems anyway.
+ ; :32x16-divide