0.8.1.4:

[sbcl.git] / BUGS

diff --git a/BUGS b/BUGS
index 527b053..a4ed57f 100644 (file)
--- a/BUGS
+++ b/BUGS
@@ -566,41 +566,6 @@ WORKAROUND:
 
   See also bugs #45.c and #183
 
-148:
-  In sbcl-0.7.1.3 on x86, COMPILE-FILE on the file
-    (in-package :cl-user)
-    (defvar *thing*)
-    (defvar *zoom*)
-    (defstruct foo bar bletch)
-    (defun %zeep ()
-      (labels ((kidify1 (kid)
-                )
-               (kid-frob (kid)
-                 (if *thing*
-                    (setf sweptm
-                          (m+ (frobnicate kid)
-                                    sweptm))
-                   (kidify1 kid))))
-      (declare (inline kid-frob))
-      (map nil
-          #'kid-frob
-          (the simple-vector (foo-bar perd)))))
-  fails with
-    debugger invoked on condition of type TYPE-ERROR:
-      The value NIL is not of type SB-C::NODE.
-  The location of this failure has moved around as various related
-  issues were cleaned up. As of sbcl-0.7.1.9, it occurs in
-  NODE-BLOCK called by LAMBDA-COMPONENT called by IR2-CONVERT-CLOSURE.
-
-  (Python LET-converts KIDIFY1 into KID-FROB, then tries to inline
-  expand KID-FROB into %ZEEP. Having partially done it, it sees a call
-  of KIDIFY1, which already does not exist. So it gives up on
-  expansion, leaving garbage consisting of infinished blocks of the
-  partially converted function.)
-
-  (due to reordering of the compiler this example is compiled
-  successfully by 0.7.14, but the bug probably remains)
-
 162:
   (reported by Robert E. Brown 2002-04-16) 
   When a function is called with too few arguments, causing the
@@ -700,11 +665,9 @@ WORKAROUND:
   propagation or with SSA, but consider
 
     (let ((x 0))
-      (loop (if (random-boolean)
-                (incf x 2)
-                (incf x 5))))
+      (loop (incf x 2)))
 
-  The careful type of X is {2k+5n} :-(. Is it really important to be
+  The careful type of X is {2k} :-(. Is it really important to be
   able to work with unions of many intervals?
 
 190: "PPC/Linux pipe? buffer? bug"
@@ -1062,33 +1025,21 @@ WORKAROUND:
 
   This is a problem because the compiler emits optimization notes when
   you use a non-simple array, and without a type specifier for hairy
-  array types, there's no good way to tell it you're doing it 
+  array types, there's no good way to tell it you're doing it
   intentionally so that it should shut up and just compile the code.
 
-258: "TYPE-ERROR when recursive LABELS function is declared INLINE"
-  The compiler does emit a helpful 
-    ; note: couldn't inline expand because expansion calls this 
-    ;   LET-converted local function:
-    ;   "LABELS COMMON-LISP-USER::C.FROB"
-  but still shouldn't fail with a TYPE-ERROR 
-    The value NIL is not of type SB-C::NODE.
-  when compiling
-    (cl:in-package :cl-user)
-    (declaim (optimize (safety 3) (speed 2) (space 1)))
-    (defvar *foo*)
-    (defvar *bar*)
-    (defun u-b-sra (x r ad0 &optional ad1 &rest ad-list)
-        (labels ((c.frob (c0)
-                   (let ()
-                     (when *foo*
-                       (vector-push-extend c0 *bar*))))
-                 (ad.frob (ad)
-                   (if *foo*
-                       (map nil #'ad.frob (the (vector t) *bar*))
-                       (dolist (b *bar*)
-                         (c.frob b)))))
-          (declare (inline c.frob ad.frob)) ; 'til DYNAMIC-EXTENT
-          (ad.frob ad0)))
+  Another poblem is confusing error message "asserted type ARRAY
+  conflicts with derived type (VALUES SIMPLE-VECTOR &OPTIONAL)" during
+  compiling (LAMBDA (V) (VALUES (SVREF V 0) (VECTOR-POP V))).
+
+  The last problem is that when type assertions are converted to type
+  checks, types are represented with type specifiers, so we could lose
+  complex attribute. (Now this is probably not important, because
+  currently checks for complex arrays seem to be performed by
+  callees.)
+
+258:
+  (fixed in 0.8.1.3)
 
 DEFUNCT CATEGORIES OF BUGS
   IR1-#: