(I haven't tried to investigate this bug enough to guess whether
there might be any user-level symptoms.)
-87:
- Despite what the manual says, (DECLAIM (SPEED 0)) doesn't cause
- things to be byte compiled. This seems to be true in cmucl-2.4.19,
- too: (COMPILE-FILE .. :BYTE-COMPILE T) causes byte-compilation,
- but ordinary COMPILE-FILE of a file containing (DECLAIM (SPEED 0))
- does not.
-
90:
a latent cross-compilation/bootstrapping bug: The cross-compilation
host's CL:CHAR-CODE-LIMIT is used in target code in readtable.lisp
(:LINUX :X86 :IEEE-FLOATING-POINT :SB-CONSTRAIN-FLOAT-TYPE :SB-TEST
:SB-INTERPRETER :SB-DOC :UNIX ...) is not of type SYMBOL.
-94:
- As reported by Christophe Rhodes on sbcl-devel 2001-03-28, the
- old declaration
- (declaim (ftype (function (list list symbol t) list) parse-deftransform))
- above DEFUN PARSE-DEFTRANSFORM was incorrect. The bad declaration was
- removed in sbcl-0.6.11.28, but the compiler problem remains: the compiler
- should've complained about the mismatch between the declaration and the
- definition, and didn't. (The compiler in cmucl-2.5.1 does detect the
- problem and complain.)
+94a:
+ Inconsistencies between derived and declared VALUES return types for
+ DEFUN aren't checked very well. E.g. the logic which successfully
+ catches problems like
+ (declaim (ftype (function (fixnum) float) foo))
+ (defun foo (x)
+ (declare (type integer x))
+ (values x)) ; wrong return type, detected, gives warning, good!
+ fails to catch
+ (declaim (ftype (function (t) (values t t)) bar))
+ (defun bar (x)
+ (values x)) ; wrong number of return values, no warning, bad!
+ The cause of this is seems to be that (1) the internal function
+ VALUES-TYPES-EQUAL-OR-INTERSECT used to make the check handles its
+ arguments symmetrically, and (2) when the type checking code was
+ written back when when SBCL's code was still CMU CL, the intent
+ was that this case
+ (declaim (ftype (function (t) t) bar))
+ (defun bar (x)
+ (values x x)) ; wrong number of return values; should give warning?
+ not be warned for, because a two-valued return value is considered
+ to be compatible with callers who expects a single value to be
+ returned. That intent is probably not appropriate for modern ANSI
+ Common Lisp, but fixing this might be complicated because of other
+ divergences between auld-style and new-style handling of
+ multiple-VALUES types. (Some issues related to this were discussed
+ on cmucl-imp at some length sometime in 2000.)
KNOWN BUGS RELATED TO THE IR1 INTERPRETER