comfortable merging the patches in the CVS version of SBCL.
108:
- (TIME (ROOM T)) reports more than 200 Mbytes consed even for
- a clean, just-started SBCL system. And it seems to be right:
- (ROOM T) can bring a small computer to its knees for a *long*
- time trying to GC afterwards. Surely there's some more economical
- way to implement (ROOM T).
+ ROOM issues:
- Daniel Barlow doesn't know what fixed this, but observes that it
- doesn't seem to be the case in 0.8.7.3 any more. Instead, (ROOM T)
- in a fresh SBCL causes
+ a) ROOM works by walking over the heap linearly, instead of
+ following the object graph. Hence, it report garbage objects that
+ are unreachable. (Maybe this is a feature and not a bug?)
- debugger invoked on a SB-INT:BUG in thread 5911:
- failed AVER: "(SAP= CURRENT END)"
-
- unless a GC has happened beforehand.
+ b) ROOM uses MAP-ALLOCATED-OBJECTS to walk the heap, which doesn't
+ check all pointers as well as it should, and can hence become
+ confused, leading to aver failures. As of 1.0.13.21 these (the
+ SAP= aver in particular) should be mostly under control, but push
+ ROOM hard enough and it still might croak.
117:
When the compiler inline expands functions, it may be that different
For some more details see comments for (define-alien-type-method
(c-string :deport-gen) ...) in host-c-call.lisp.
-402: "DECLAIM DECLARATION does not inform the PCL code-walker"
- reported by Vincent Arkesteijn:
-
- (declaim (declaration foo))
- (defgeneric bar (x))
- (defmethod bar (x)
- (declare (foo x))
- x)
-
- ==> WARNING: The declaration FOO is not understood by
- SB-PCL::SPLIT-DECLARATIONS.
- Please put FOO on one of the lists SB-PCL::*NON-VAR-DECLARATIONS*,
- SB-PCL::*VAR-DECLARATIONS-WITH-ARG*, or
- SB-PCL::*VAR-DECLARATIONS-WITHOUT-ARG*.
- (Assuming it is a variable declaration without argument).
-
403: FORMAT/PPRINT-LOGICAL-BLOCK of CONDITIONs ignoring *PRINT-CIRCLE*
In sbcl-0.9.13.34,
(defparameter *c*
3: (SB-C::BOUND-FUNC ...)
4: (SB-C::%SINGLE-FLOAT-DERIVE-TYPE-AUX ...)
+ These are now fixed, but (COERCE HUGE 'SINGLE-FLOAT) still signals a
+ type-error at runtime. The question is, should it instead signal a
+ floating-point overflow, or return an infinity?
+
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
implementation of read circularity, using a symbol as a marker for
the previously-referenced object.
-413: type-errors in ROOM
-
- (defvar *a* (make-array (expt 2 27)))
- (room)
-
- Causes a type-error on 32bit SBCL, as various byte-counts in ROOM
- implementation overrun fixnums.
-
- This was fixed in 1.0.4.89, but the patch was reverted as it caused
- ROOM to cons sufficiently to make running it in a loop deadly on
- GENCGC: newly allocated objects survived to generation 1, where next
- call to ROOM would see them, and allocate even more...
-
- Reported by Faré Rideau on sbcl-devel.
-
-414: strange DISASSEMBLE warning
-
- Compiling and disassembling
-
- (defun disassemble-source-form-bug (x y z)
- (declare (optimize debug))
- (list x y z))
-
- Gives
-
- WARNING: bogus form-number in form! The source file has probably
- been changed too much to cope with.
-
415: Issues creating large arrays on x86-64/Linux and x86/Darwin
(make-array (1- array-dimension-limit))
seems to lie if the OS is buffering input for us on Console.)
reported by Elliot Slaughter on sbcl-devel 2008/1/10.
+
+422: out-of-extent return not checked in safe code
+
+ (declaim (optimize safety))
+ (funcall (catch 't (block nil (throw 't (lambda () (return))))))
+
+behaves ...erratically. Reported by Kevin Reid on sbcl-devel
+2007-07-06. (We don't _have_ to check things like this, but we
+generally try to check returns in safe code, so we should here too.)
projects / sbcl.git / blobdiff