+
+ ;; Variables which are set but never referenced can be
+ ;; optimized away, and closing over them here would just
+ ;; interfere with that. (In bug 147, it *did* interfere with
+ ;; that, causing confusion later. This UNLESS solves that
+ ;; problem, but I (WHN) am not 100% sure it's best to solve
+ ;; the problem this way instead of somehow solving it
+ ;; somewhere upstream and just doing (AVER (LEAF-REFS VAR))
+ ;; here.)
+ (unless (null (leaf-refs var))
+
+ (let ((set-physenv (get-node-physenv set)))
+ (unless (eq set-physenv physenv)
+ (setf did-something t
+ (lambda-var-indirect var) t)
+ (close-over var set-physenv physenv))))))
+ did-something))
+
+;;; Find any variables in CLAMBDA -- either directly in LAMBDA-VARS or
+;;; in the LAMBDA-VARS of elements of LAMBDA-LETS -- with references
+;;; outside of the home environment and close over them. If a
+;;; closed-over variable is set, then we set the INDIRECT flag so that
+;;; we will know the closed over value is really a pointer to the
+;;; value cell. We also warn about unreferenced variables here, just
+;;; because it's a convenient place to do it. We return true if we
+;;; close over anything.
+(defun add-lambda-vars-and-let-vars-to-closures (clambda)
+ (declare (type clambda clambda))
+ (let ((did-something nil))
+ (when (%add-lambda-vars-to-closures clambda)
+ (setf did-something t))
+ (dolist (lambda-let (lambda-lets clambda))
+ ;; There's no need to recurse through full COMPUTE-CLOSURE
+ ;; here, since LETS only go one layer deep.
+ (aver (null (lambda-lets lambda-let)))
+ (when (%add-lambda-vars-to-closures lambda-let)
+ (setf did-something t)))