- ;; We don't need to wrap this with a without-gcing, because once we have
- ;; extracted the value, our reference to it will keep the weak pointer
- ;; from becoming broken. We just have to make sure the compiler won't
- ;; reorder these primitives.
+ ;; We don't need to wrap this with a WITHOUT-GCING, because once we
+ ;; have extracted the value, our reference to it will keep the weak
+ ;; pointer from becoming broken. We just have to make sure the
+ ;; compiler won't reorder these primitives.
+ ;;
+ ;; FIXME: Might it be a good idea to tweak the DEFKNOWNs for
+ ;; %WEAK-POINTER-VALUE and %WEAK-POINTER-BROKEN, so that the
+ ;; compiler will never try to reorder them even in code where we
+ ;; neglect to frame them in a LET?