around the same time regarding a call to LIST on sparc with 1000
arguments) and other implementation limit constants.
-311: "Tokeniser not thread-safe"
- (see also Robert Marlow sbcl-help "Multi threaded read chucking a
- spak" 2004-04-19)
- The tokenizer's use of *read-buffer* and *read-buffer-length* causes
- spurious errors should two threads attempt to tokenise at the same
- time.
-
314: "LOOP :INITIALLY clauses and scope of initializers"
reported by Bruno Haible sbcl-devel "various SBCL bugs" from CLISP
test suite, originally by Thomas F. Burdick.
method is applicable, and yet matches neither of the method group
qualifier patterns.
-341: PPRINT-LOGICAL-BLOCK / PPRINT-FILL / PPRINT-LINEAR sharing detection.
- (from Paul Dietz' test suite)
-
- CLHS on PPRINT-LINEAR and PPRINT-FILL (and PPRINT-TABULAR, though
- that's slightly different) states that these functions perform
- circular and shared structure detection on their object. Therefore,
-
- a.(let ((*print-circle* t))
- (pprint-linear *standard-output* (let ((x '(a))) (list x x))))
- should print "(#1=(A) #1#)"
-
- b.(let ((*print-circle* t))
- (pprint-linear *standard-output*
- (let ((x (cons nil nil))) (setf (cdr x) x) x)))
- should print "#1=(NIL . #1#)"
-
- (it is likely that the fault lies in PPRINT-LOGICAL-BLOCK, as
- suggested by the suggested implementation of PPRINT-TABULAR)
-
343: MOP:COMPUTE-DISCRIMINATING-FUNCTION overriding causes error
Even the simplest possible overriding of
COMPUTE-DISCRIMINATING-FUNCTION, suggested in the PCL implementation
A simpler example:
(compile nil '(lambda (x) (the (not (eql #\a)) x)))
+
+ (partially fixed in 0.9.3.1, but a better representation for these
+ types is needed.)
+
+385:
+ (format nil "~4,1F" 0.001) => "0.00" (should be " 0.0");
+ (format nil "~4,1@F" 0.001) => "+.00" (should be "+0.0").
+
+386: SunOS/x86 stack exhaustion handling broken
+ 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