+ ;; Kludge or not? I don't know whether the smaller allocation size
+ ;; for sb-safepoint is a legitimate correction to the test case, or
+ ;; rather hides the actual bug this test is checking for... It's also
+ ;; not clear to me whether the issue is actually safepoint-specific.
+ ;; But the main problem safepoint-related bugs tend to introduce is a
+ ;; delay in the GC triggering -- and if bug-936304 fails, it also
+ ;; causes bug-981106 to fail, even though there is a full GC in
+ ;; between, which makes it seem unlikely to me that the problem is
+ ;; delay- (and hence safepoint-) related. --DFL
+ (let* ((x (make-array (truncate #-sb-safepoint (* 0.2 (dynamic-space-size))
+ #+sb-safepoint (* 0.1 (dynamic-space-size))