1.0.17.6: fix bug introduced by 1.0.7.3

[sbcl.git] / BUGS

diff --git a/BUGS b/BUGS
index 75a62e0..7f62d6c 100644 (file)
--- a/BUGS
+++ b/BUGS
@@ -556,11 +556,6 @@ WORKAROUND:
   c. The cross-compiler cannot inline functions defined in a non-null
      lexical environment.
 
-206: ":SB-FLUID feature broken"
-  (reported by Antonio Martinez-Shotton sbcl-devel 2002-10-07)
-  Enabling :SB-FLUID in the target-features list in sbcl-0.7.8 breaks
-  the build.
-
 207: "poorly distributed SXHASH results for compound data"
   SBCL's SXHASH could probably try a little harder. ANSI: "the
   intent is that an implementation should make a good-faith
@@ -1810,7 +1805,8 @@ WORKAROUND:
 
 419: stack-allocated indirect closure variables are not popped
 
-    (locally (declare (optimize speed (safety 0)))
+    (locally (declare (optimize sb-c::stack-allocate-dynamic-extent
+                                sb-c::stack-allocate-value-cells))
       (defun bug419 (x)
         (multiple-value-call #'list
           (eval '(values 1 2 3))
@@ -1823,7 +1819,13 @@ WORKAROUND:
               (declare (dynamic-extent #'mget #'mset))
               ((lambda (f g) (eval `(progn ,f ,g (values 4 5 6)))) #'mget #'mset))))))
 
-  (ASSERT (EQUAL (BUG419) '(1 2 3 4 5 6))) => failure
+  (ASSERT (EQUAL (BUG419 42) '(1 2 3 4 5 6))) => failure
+
+  Note: as of SBCL 1.0.26.29 this bug no longer affects user code, as
+  SB-C::STACK-ALLOCATE-VALUE-CELLS needs to be explicitly turned on for
+  that to happen. Proper fix for this bug requires (Nikodemus thinks)
+  storing the relevant LAMBDA-VARs in a :DYNAMIC-EXTENT cleanup, and
+  teaching stack analysis how to deal with them.
 
 420: The MISC.556 test from gcl/ansi-tests/misc.lsp fails hard.
 
@@ -1951,3 +1953,13 @@ generally try to check returns in safe code, so we should here too.)
  second nested one. A trivial fix is to call CHANGE-REF-LEAF in known
  call for functions already inline converted there, but he is not sure
  if this has adverse effects elsewhere.
+
+427: ANY-REG not good for primitive type T
+
+ ...which is true, of course, but the following should not complain
+ about it (on x86 and x86-64):
+
+  (sb-alien:with-alien ((buf (array (sb-alien:signed 8) 16))))
+
+ reported by Stelian Ionescu on sbcl-devel.
+