+Implies SB-SYS:WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS for BODY, and causes any nested
+SB-SYS:WITH-INTERRUPTS to signal a warning during execution of the BODY.
+
+Should be used with great care, and not at all in multithreaded application
+code: Any locks that are ever acquired while GC is inhibited need to be always
+held with GC inhibited to prevent deadlocks: if T1 holds the lock and is
+stopped for GC while T2 is waiting for the lock inside WITHOUT-GCING the
+system will be deadlocked. Since SBCL does not currently document its internal
+locks, application code can never be certain that this invariant is
+maintained."
+ (with-unique-names (without-gcing-body)
+ `(flet ((,without-gcing-body ()
+ ,@body))
+ (if *gc-inhibit*
+ (,without-gcing-body)
+ (without-interrupts
+ ;; We need to disable interrupts before disabling GC, so that
+ ;; signal handlers using locks don't accidentally try to grab
+ ;; them with GC inhibited.
+ ;;
+ ;; It would be nice to implement this with just a single UWP, but
+ ;; unfortunately it seems that it cannot be done: the naive
+ ;; solution of binding both *INTERRUPTS-ENABLED* and
+ ;; *GC-INHIBIT*, and checking for both pending GC and interrupts
+ ;; in the cleanup breaks if we have a GC pending, but no
+ ;; interrupts, and we receive an asynch unwind while checking for
+ ;; the pending GC: we unwind before handling the pending GC, and
+ ;; will be left running with further GCs blocked due to the GC
+ ;; pending flag.
+ (unwind-protect
+ (let ((*gc-inhibit* t))
+ (,without-gcing-body))
+ (when (or *gc-pending* #!+sb-thread *stop-for-gc-pending*)
+ (sb!unix::receive-pending-interrupt))))))))