- ((or (lexenv-blocks lexenv) (lexenv-tags lexenv)) nil)
- ((and (null vars) (null funs)) `(lambda-with-lexenv
- nil nil nil
- ,@(cdr lambda)))
- ((dolist (x vars nil)
- #+sb-xc-host
- ;; KLUDGE: too complicated for cross-compilation
- (return t)
- #-sb-xc-host
- (let ((name (car x))
- (what (cdr x)))
- ;; only worry about the innermost binding
- (when (eq x (assoc name vars :test #'eq))
- (typecase what
- (cons
- (aver (eq (car what) 'macro))
- (symbol-macros x))
- (global-var
- ;; A global should not appear in the lexical
- ;; environment? Is this true? FIXME!
- (aver (eq (global-var-kind what) :special))
- (decls `(special ,name)))
- (t
- ;; we can't inline in the presence of this object
- (return t))))))
- nil)
- ((dolist (x funs nil)
- #+sb-xc-host
- ;; KLUDGE: too complicated for cross-compilation (and
- ;; failure of OAOO in comments, *sigh*)
- (return t)
- #-sb-xc-host
- (let ((name (car x))
- (what (cdr x)))
- ;; again, only worry about the innermost binding, but
- ;; functions can have name (SETF FOO) so we need to use
- ;; EQUAL for the test.
- (when (eq x (assoc name funs :test #'equal))
- (typecase what
- (cons
- (macros (cons name (function-lambda-expression (cdr what)))))
- ;; FIXME: Is there a good reason for this not to be
- ;; DEFINED-FUN (which :INCLUDEs GLOBAL-VAR, in case
- ;; you're wondering how this ever worked :-)? Maybe
- ;; in conjunction with an AVERrance that it's not an
- ;; (AND GLOBAL-VAR (NOT GLOBAL-FUN))? -- CSR,
- ;; 2002-07-08
- (global-var
- (when (defined-fun-p what)
- (decls `(,(car (rassoc (defined-fun-inlinep what)
- *inlinep-translations*))
+ ((or (lexenv-blocks lexenv) (lexenv-tags lexenv)) nil)
+ ((and (null vars) (null funs)) `(lambda-with-lexenv
+ nil nil nil
+ ,@(cdr lambda)))
+ ((dolist (x vars nil)
+ #+sb-xc-host
+ ;; KLUDGE: too complicated for cross-compilation
+ (return t)
+ #-sb-xc-host
+ (let ((name (car x))
+ (what (cdr x)))
+ ;; only worry about the innermost binding
+ (when (eq x (assoc name vars :test #'eq))
+ (typecase what
+ (cons
+ (aver (eq (car what) 'macro))
+ (symbol-macros x))
+ (global-var
+ ;; A global should not appear in the lexical
+ ;; environment? Is this true? FIXME!
+ (aver (eq (global-var-kind what) :special))
+ (decls `(special ,name)))
+ (t
+ ;; we can't inline in the presence of this object
+ (return t))))))
+ nil)
+ ((dolist (x funs nil)
+ #+sb-xc-host
+ ;; KLUDGE: too complicated for cross-compilation (and
+ ;; failure of OAOO in comments, *sigh*)
+ (return t)
+ #-sb-xc-host
+ (let ((name (car x))
+ (what (cdr x)))
+ ;; again, only worry about the innermost binding, but
+ ;; functions can have name (SETF FOO) so we need to use
+ ;; EQUAL for the test.
+ (when (eq x (assoc name funs :test #'equal))
+ (typecase what
+ (cons
+ (macros (cons name (function-lambda-expression (cdr what)))))
+ ;; FIXME: Is there a good reason for this not to be
+ ;; DEFINED-FUN (which :INCLUDEs GLOBAL-VAR, in case
+ ;; you're wondering how this ever worked :-)? Maybe
+ ;; in conjunction with an AVERrance that it's not an
+ ;; (AND GLOBAL-VAR (NOT GLOBAL-FUN))? -- CSR,
+ ;; 2002-07-08
+ (global-var
+ (when (defined-fun-p what)
+ (decls `(,(car (rassoc (defined-fun-inlinep what)
+ *inlinep-translations*))