Perhaps any number of such consecutive lines ought to turn into a
single "byte compiling top-level forms:" line.
-9:
- The handling of IGNORE declarations on lambda list arguments of
- DEFMETHOD is at least weird, and in fact seems broken and useless.
- I should fix up another layer of binding, declared IGNORABLE, for
- typed lambda list arguments.
-
10:
The way that the compiler munges types with arguments together
with types with no arguments (in e.g. TYPE-EXPAND) leads to
The situation is complicated by the presence of Common Lisp types
like UNSIGNED-BYTE (which can either be used in list form or alone)
so I'm not 100% sure that the behavior above is actually illegal.
- But I'm 90+% sure, and someday perhaps I'll be motivated to look it up..
+ But I'm 90+% sure, and the following related behavior,
+ (TYPEP 11 'AND) => T
+ treating the bare symbol AND as equivalent to '(AND), is specifically
+ forbidden (by the ANSI specification of the AND type).
11:
It would be nice if the
(during macroexpansion of IN-PACKAGE,
during macroexpansion of DEFFOO)
-12:
- The type system doesn't understand the KEYWORD type very well:
- (SUBTYPEP 'KEYWORD 'SYMBOL) => NIL, NIL
- It might be possible to fix this by changing the definition of
- KEYWORD to (AND SYMBOL (SATISFIES KEYWORDP)), but the type system
- would need to be a bit smarter about AND types, too:
- (SUBTYPEP '(AND SYMBOL KEYWORD) 'SYMBOL) => NIL, NIL
- (The type system does know something about AND types already,
- (SUBTYPEP '(AND INTEGER FLOAT) 'NUMBER) => T, T
- (SUBTYPEP '(AND INTEGER FIXNUM) 'NUMBER) =>T, T
- so likely this is a small patch.)
-
13:
Floating point infinities are screwed up. [When I was converting CMU CL
to SBCL, I was looking for complexity to delete, and I thought it was safe
to just delete support for floating point infinities. It wasn't: they're
generated by the floating point hardware even when we remove support
- for them in software. -- WHN] Support for them should be restored.
+ for them in software. Also we claim the :IEEE-FLOATING-POINT feature,
+ and I think that means we should support infinities.-- WHN] Support
+ for them should be restored.
14:
The ANSI syntax for non-STANDARD method combination types in CLOS is
a secondary error "caught ERROR: unrecoverable error during compilation"
and then return with FAILURE-P true,
-25:
- from CMU CL mailing list 01 May 2000
-
-I realize I can take care of this by doing (proclaim (ignore pcl::.slots1.))
-but seeing as .slots0. is not-exported, shouldn't it be ignored within the
-+expansion
-when not used?
-
-In: DEFMETHOD FOO-BAR-BAZ (RESOURCE-TYPE)
- (DEFMETHOD FOO-BAR-BAZ
- ((SELF RESOURCE-TYPE))
- (SETF (SLOT-VALUE SELF 'NAME) 3))
---> BLOCK MACROLET PCL::FAST-LEXICAL-METHOD-FUNCTIONS
---> PCL::BIND-FAST-LEXICAL-METHOD-MACROS MACROLET
---> PCL::BIND-LEXICAL-METHOD-FUNCTIONS LET PCL::BIND-ARGS LET* PCL::PV-BINDING
---> PCL::PV-BINDING1 PCL::PV-ENV LET
-==>
- (LET ((PCL::.SLOTS0. #))
- (PROGN SELF)
- (BLOCK FOO-BAR-BAZ
- (LET #
- #)))
-Warning: Variable PCL::.SLOTS0. defined but never used.
-
-Compilation unit finished.
- 1 warning
-
-#<Standard-Method FOO-BAR-BAZ (RESOURCE-TYPE) {480918FD}>
-
26:
reported by Sam Steingold on the cmucl-imp mailing list 12 May 2000:
And as long as we're wishing, it would be awfully nice if INSPECT could
also report on closures, telling about the values of the bound variables.
-34:
- WHN test case: Compile this file:
- (eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
- (defclass a-class () (a)))
- (defconstant +a-constant+ (make-instance 'a-class))
- (defconstant +another-constant+ (vector +a-constant+))
- as reported by Robert Strandh on the CMU CL mailing list 12 Jun 2000:
- $ cat xx.lisp
- (defconstant +a-constant+ (make-instance 'a-class))
- (defconstant +another-constant+ (vector +a-constant+))
- $ lisp
- CMU Common Lisp release x86-linux 2.4.19 8 February 2000 build 456,
- running on
- bobby
- Send bug reports and questions to your local CMU CL maintainer,
- or to pvaneynd@debian.org
- or to cmucl-help@cons.org. (prefered)
- type (help) for help, (quit) to exit, and (demo) to see the demos
- Loaded subsystems:
- Python 1.0, target Intel x86
- CLOS based on PCL version: September 16 92 PCL (f)
- * (defclass a-class () ())
- #<STANDARD-CLASS A-CLASS {48027BD5}>
- * (compile-file "xx.lisp")
- Python version 1.0, VM version Intel x86 on 12 JUN 00 08:12:55 am.
- Compiling:
- /home/strandh/Research/Functional/Common-Lisp/CLIM/Development/McCLIM
- /xx.lisp 12 JUN 00 07:47:14 am
- Compiling Load Time Value of (PCL::GET-MAKE-INSTANCE-FUNCTION-SYMBOL
- '(A-CLASS NIL NIL)):
- Byte Compiling Top-Level Form:
- Error in function C::DUMP-STRUCTURE: Attempt to dump invalid
- structure:
- #<A-CLASS {4803A5B5}>
- How did this happen?
-
35:
The compiler assumes that any time a function of declared FTYPE
doesn't signal an error, its arguments were of the declared type.
#<Closure Over Function "DEFUN (SETF MACRO-FUNCTION)" {480E21B1}> was defined in a non-null environment.
58:
- (SUBTYPEP '(AND ZILCH INTEGER) 'ZILCH)
- => NIL, NIL
+ (SUBTYPEP '(AND ZILCH INTEGER) 'ZILCH) => NIL, NIL
+ Note: I looked into fixing this in 0.6.11.15, but gave up. The
+ problem seems to be that there are two relevant type methods for
+ the subtypep operation, HAIRY :COMPLEX-SUBTYPEP-ARG2 and
+ INTERSECTION :COMPLEX-SUBTYPEP-ARG1, and only the first is
+ called. This could be fixed, but type dispatch is messy and
+ confusing enough already, I don't want to complicate it further.
+ Perhaps someday we can make CLOS cross-compiled (instead of compiled
+ after bootstrapping) so that we don't need to have the type system
+ available before CLOS, and then we can rewrite the type methods to
+ CLOS methods, and then expressing the solutions to stuff like this
+ should become much more straightforward. -- WHN 2001-03-14
59:
CL:*DEFAULT-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS* doesn't behave as ANSI suggests (reflecting
80:
(fixed early Feb 2001 by MNA)
+81:
+ As reported by wbuss@TELDA.NET (Wolfhard Buss) on cmucl-help
+ 2001-02-14,
+ According to CLHS
+ (loop with (a . b) of-type float = '(0.0 . 1.0)
+ and (c . d) of-type float = '(2.0 . 3.0)
+ return (list a b c d))
+ should evaluate to (0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0). cmucl-18c disagrees and
+ invokes the debugger: "B is not of type list".
+ SBCL does the same thing.
+
+82:
+ Functions are assigned names based on the context in which they're
+ defined. This is less than ideal for the functions which are
+ used to implement CLOS methods. E.g. the output of
+ (DESCRIBE 'PRINT-OBJECT) lists functions like
+ #<FUNCTION "DEF!STRUCT (TRACE-INFO (:MAKE-LOAD-FORM-FUN SB-KERNEL:JUST-DUMP-IT-NORMALLY) (:PRINT-OBJECT #))" {1020E49}>
+ and
+ #<FUNCTION "MACROLET ((FORCE-DELAYED-DEF!METHODS NIL #))" {1242871}>
+ It would be better if these functions' names always identified
+ them as methods, and identified their generic functions and
+ specializers.
+
+83:
+ RANDOM-INTEGER-EXTRA-BITS=10 may not be large enough for the RANDOM
+ RNG to be high quality near RANDOM-FIXNUM-MAX; it looks as though
+ the mean of the distribution can be systematically O(0.1%) wrong.
+ Just increasing R-I-E-B is probably not a good solution, since
+ it would decrease efficiency more than is probably necessary. Perhaps
+ using some sort of accept/reject method would be better.
+
+84:
+ (SUBTYPEP '(SATISFIES SOME-UNDEFINED-FUN) NIL)=>NIL,T (should be NIL,NIL)
+
+85:
+ Internally the compiler sometimes evaluates
+ (sb-kernel:type/= (specifier-type '*) (specifier-type t))
+ (I stumbled across this when I added an
+ (assert (not (eq type1 *wild-type*)))
+ in the NAMED :SIMPLE-= type method.) '* isn't really a type, and
+ in a type context should probably be translated to T, and so it's
+ probably to ask whether it's equal to the T type and then (using the
+ EQ type comparison in the NAMED :SIMPLE-= type method) return NIL.
+ (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.
+
+89:
+ The type system doesn't understand the the intersection of the types
+ KEYWORD and (OR KEYWORD NULL) is KEYWORD, perhaps because KEYWORD
+ is itself an intersection type and that causes technical problems
+ with the simplification. Thus, the optimizer can't make some useful
+ valid type inferences.
+
+90:
+ a latent cross-compilation/bootstrapping bug: The cross-compilation
+ host's CL:CHAR-CODE-LIMIT is used in target code in readtable.lisp
+ and possibly elsewhere. Instead, we should use the target system's
+ CHAR-CODE-LIMIT. This will probably cause problems if we try to
+ bootstrap on a system which uses a different value of CHAR-CODE-LIMIT
+ than SBCL does.
+
KNOWN BUGS RELATED TO THE IR1 INTERPRETER
projects / sbcl.git / blobdiff