- (careful-call fun-name
- args
- call
- ;; Note: CMU CL had COMPILER-WARN here, and that
- ;; seems more natural, but it's probably not.
- ;;
- ;; It's especially not while bug 173 exists:
- ;; Expressions like
- ;; (COND (END
- ;; (UNLESS (OR UNSAFE? (<= END SIZE)))
- ;; ...))
- ;; can cause constant-folding TYPE-ERRORs (in
- ;; #'<=) when END can be proved to be NIL, even
- ;; though the code is perfectly legal and safe
- ;; because a NIL value of END means that the
- ;; #'<= will never be executed.
- ;;
- ;; Moreover, even without bug 173,
- ;; quite-possibly-valid code like
- ;; (COND ((NONINLINED-PREDICATE END)
- ;; (UNLESS (<= END SIZE))
- ;; ...))
- ;; (where NONINLINED-PREDICATE is something the
- ;; compiler can't do at compile time, but which
- ;; turns out to make the #'<= expression
- ;; unreachable when END=NIL) could cause errors
- ;; when the compiler tries to constant-fold (<=
- ;; END SIZE).
- ;;
- ;; So, with or without bug 173, it'd be
- ;; unnecessarily evil to do a full
- ;; COMPILER-WARNING (and thus return FAILURE-P=T
- ;; from COMPILE-FILE) for legal code, so we we
- ;; use a wimpier COMPILE-STYLE-WARNING instead.
- #'compiler-style-warn
- "constant folding")
+ (careful-call fun-name
+ args
+ call
+ ;; Note: CMU CL had COMPILER-WARN here, and that
+ ;; seems more natural, but it's probably not.
+ ;;
+ ;; It's especially not while bug 173 exists:
+ ;; Expressions like
+ ;; (COND (END
+ ;; (UNLESS (OR UNSAFE? (<= END SIZE)))
+ ;; ...))
+ ;; can cause constant-folding TYPE-ERRORs (in
+ ;; #'<=) when END can be proved to be NIL, even
+ ;; though the code is perfectly legal and safe
+ ;; because a NIL value of END means that the
+ ;; #'<= will never be executed.
+ ;;
+ ;; Moreover, even without bug 173,
+ ;; quite-possibly-valid code like
+ ;; (COND ((NONINLINED-PREDICATE END)
+ ;; (UNLESS (<= END SIZE))
+ ;; ...))
+ ;; (where NONINLINED-PREDICATE is something the
+ ;; compiler can't do at compile time, but which
+ ;; turns out to make the #'<= expression
+ ;; unreachable when END=NIL) could cause errors
+ ;; when the compiler tries to constant-fold (<=
+ ;; END SIZE).
+ ;;
+ ;; So, with or without bug 173, it'd be
+ ;; unnecessarily evil to do a full
+ ;; COMPILER-WARNING (and thus return FAILURE-P=T
+ ;; from COMPILE-FILE) for legal code, so we we
+ ;; use a wimpier COMPILE-STYLE-WARNING instead.
+ #-sb-xc-host #'compiler-style-warn
+ ;; On the other hand, for code we control, we
+ ;; should be able to work around any bug
+ ;; 173-related problems, and in particular we
+ ;; want to be alerted to calls to our own
+ ;; functions which aren't being folded away; a
+ ;; COMPILER-WARNING is butch enough to stop the
+ ;; SBCL build itself in its tracks.
+ #+sb-xc-host #'compiler-warn
+ "constant folding")