283: Thread safety: libc functions
There are places that we call unsafe-for-threading libc functions
that we should find alternatives for, or put locks around. Known or
- strongly suspected problems, as of 0.8.3.10: please update this
+ strongly suspected problems, as of 1.0.3.13: please update this
bug instead of creating new ones
- gethostbyname, gethostbyaddr in sb-bsd-sockets
-
284: Thread safety: special variables
There are lots of special variables in SBCL, and I feel sure that at
least some of them are indicative of potentially thread-unsafe
2: (SB-KERNEL:%SINGLE-FLOAT ...)
3: (SB-C::BOUND-FUNC ...)
4: (SB-C::%SINGLE-FLOAT-DERIVE-TYPE-AUX ...)
+
+408: SUBTYPEP confusion re. OR of SATISFIES of not-yet-defined predicate
+ As reported by Levente M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros sbcl-devel 2006-02-20,
+ (aver (equal (multiple-value-list
+ (subtypep '(or (satisfies x) string)
+ '(or (satisfies x) integer)))
+ '(nil nil)))
+ fails. Also, beneath that failure lurks another failure,
+ (aver (equal (multiple-value-list
+ (subtypep 'string
+ '(or (satisfies x) integer)))
+ '(nil nil)))
+ Having looked at this for an hour or so in sbcl-1.0.2, and
+ specifically having looked at the output from
+ laptop$ sbcl
+ * (let ((x 'string)
+ (y '(or (satisfies x) integer)))
+ (trace sb-kernel::union-complex-subtypep-arg2
+ sb-kernel::invoke-complex-subtypep-arg1-method
+ sb-kernel::type-union
+ sb-kernel::type-intersection
+ sb-kernel::type=)
+ (subtypep x y))
+ my (WHN) impression is that the problem is that the semantics of TYPE=
+ are wrong for what the UNION-COMPLEX-SUBTYPEP-ARG2 code is trying
+ to use it for. The comments on the definition of TYPE= probably
+ date back to CMU CL and seem to define it as a confusing thing:
+ its primary value is something like "certainly equal," and its
+ secondary value is something like "certain about that certainty."
+ I'm left uncertain how to fix UNION-COMPLEX-SUBTYPEP-ARG2 without
+ reducing its generality by removing the TYPE= cleverness. Possibly
+ the tempting TYPE/= relative defined next to it might be a
+ suitable replacement for the purpose. Probably, though, it would
+ be best to start by reverse engineering exactly what TYPE= and
+ TYPE/= do, and writing an explanation which is so clear that one
+ can see immediately what it's supposed to mean in odd cases like
+ (TYPE= '(SATISFIES X) 'INTEGER) when X isn't defined yet.
+
+409: MORE TYPE SYSTEM PROBLEMS
+ Found while investigating an optimization failure for extended
+ sequences. The extended sequence type implementation was altered to
+ work around the problem, but the fundamental problem remains, to wit:
+ (sb-kernel:type= (sb-kernel:specifier-type '(or float ratio))
+ (sb-kernel:specifier-type 'single-float))
+ returns NIL, NIL on sbcl-1.0.3.
+ (probably related to bug #408)
+
+410: read circularities and type declarations
+ Consider the definition
+ (defstruct foo (a 0 :type (not symbol)))
+ followed by
+ (setf *print-circle* t) ; just in case
+ (read-from-string "#1=#s(foo :a #1#)")
+ This gives a type error (#:G1 is not a (NOT SYMBOL)) because of the
+ implementation of read circularity, using a symbol as a marker for
+ the previously-referenced object.
+
+411: NAN issues on x86-64
+ Test :NAN-COMPARISONS in float.pure.lisp fails on x86-64, and has been
+ disabled on those platforms. Since x86 does not exhibit any problems
+ the problem is probably with the new FP implementation.
projects / sbcl.git / blobdiff