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.
+ Currently INSPECT and DESCRIBE do show the values, but showing the
+ names of the bindings would be even nicer.
+
35:
The compiler assumes that any time a function of declared FTYPE
doesn't signal an error, its arguments were of the declared type.
According to <http://alfa.s145.xrea.com/sbcl/solaris-x86.html>, the
stack exhaustion checking (implemented with a write-protected guard
page) does not work on SunOS/x86.
+
+387:
+ 12:10 < jsnell> the package-lock test is basically due to a change in the test
+ behaviour when you install a handler for error around it. I
+ thought I'd disabled the test for now, but apparently that was
+ my imagination
+ 12:19 < Xophe> jsnell: ah, I see the problem in the package-locks stuff
+ 12:19 < Xophe> it's the same problem as we had with compiler-error conditions
+ 12:19 < Xophe> the thing that's signalled up and down the stack is a subtype of
+ ERROR, where it probably shouldn't be
+
+388:
+ (found by Dmitry Bogomolov)
+
+ (defclass foo () ((x :type (unsigned-byte 8))))
+ (defclass bar () ((x :type symbol)))
+ (defclass baz (foo bar) ())
+
+ causes error
+
+ SB-PCL::SPECIALIZER-APPLICABLE-USING-TYPE-P cannot handle the second argument
+ (UNSIGNED-BYTE 8).
+
+389:
+ (reported several times on sbcl-devel, by Rick Taube, Brian Rowe and
+ others)
+
+ ROUND-NUMERIC-BOUND assumes that float types always have a FORMAT
+ specifying whether they're SINGLE or DOUBLE. This is true for types
+ computed by the type system itself, but the compiler type derivation
+ short-circuits this and constructs non-canonical types. A temporary
+ fix was made to ROUND-NUMERIC-BOUND for the sbcl-0.9.6 release, but
+ the right fix is to remove the abstraction violation in the
+ compiler's type deriver.
projects / sbcl.git / blobdiff