+;;; COERCE got its own DEFOPTIMIZER which has to reimplement most of
+;;; SPECIFIER-TYPE-NTH-ARG. For a while, an illegal type would throw
+;;; you into the debugger on compilation.
+(defun coerce-defopt (x)
+ ;; illegal, but should be compilable.
+ (coerce x '(values t)))
+(assert (null (ignore-errors (coerce-defopt 3))))
+\f
+;;; Oops. In part of the (CATCH ..) implementation of DEBUG-RETURN,
+;;; it was possible to confuse the type deriver of the compiler
+;;; sufficiently that compiler invariants were broken (explained by
+;;; APD sbcl-devel 2003-01-11).
+
+;;; WHN's original report
+(defun debug-return-catch-break1 ()
+ (with-open-file (s "/tmp/foo"
+ :direction :output
+ :element-type (list
+ 'signed-byte
+ (1+
+ (integer-length most-positive-fixnum))))
+ (read-byte s)
+ (read-byte s)
+ (read-byte s)
+ (read-byte s)))
+
+;;; APD's simplified test case
+(defun debug-return-catch-break2 (x)
+ (declare (type (vector (unsigned-byte 8)) x))
+ (setq *y* (the (unsigned-byte 8) (aref x 4))))
+\f
+;;; FUNCTION-LAMBDA-EXPRESSION should return something that's COMPILE
+;;; can understand. Here's a simple test for that on a function
+;;; that's likely to return a hairier list than just a lambda:
+(macrolet ((def (fn) `(progn
+ (declaim (inline ,fn))
+ (defun ,fn (x) (1+ x)))))
+ (def bug228))
+(let ((x (function-lambda-expression #'bug228)))
+ (when x
+ (assert (= (funcall (compile nil x) 1) 2))))
+
+;;; Bug reported by reported by rif on c.l.l 2003-03-05
+(defun test-type-of-special-1 (x)
+ (declare (special x)
+ (fixnum x)
+ (optimize (safety 3)))
+ (list x))
+(defun test-type-of-special-2 (x)
+ (declare (special x)
+ (fixnum x)
+ (optimize (safety 3)))
+ (list x (setq x (/ x 2)) x))
+(assert (raises-error? (test-type-of-special-1 3/2) type-error))
+(assert (raises-error? (test-type-of-special-2 3) type-error))
+(assert (equal (test-type-of-special-2 8) '(8 4 4)))
+