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*
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.)