d: (fixed in 0.8.1.5)
-27:
- Sometimes (SB-EXT:QUIT) fails with
- Argh! maximum interrupt nesting depth (4096) exceeded, exiting
- Process inferior-lisp exited abnormally with code 1
- I haven't noticed a repeatable case of this yet.
-
33:
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.
e-mail on cmucl-help@cons.org on 2001-01-16 and 2001-01-17 from WHN
and Pierre Mai.)
+ (Actually this has changed changed since, and types as above are
+ now supported. This may be a bug.)
+
83:
RANDOM-INTEGER-EXTRA-BITS=10 may not be large enough for the RANDOM
RNG to be high quality near RANDOM-FIXNUM-MAX; it looks as though
a. (lambda () (svref (make-array 8 :adjustable t) 1))
- b. (lambda (x)
- (list (let ((y (the real x)))
- (unless (floatp y) (error ""))
- y)
- (integer-length x)))
+ b. (fixed at some point before 1.0.4.10)
c. (lambda (x)
(declare (optimize (debug 0)))
283: Thread safety: libc functions
There are places that we call unsafe-for-threading libc functions
that we should find alternatives for, or put locks around. Known or
- strongly suspected problems, as of 0.8.3.10: please update this
+ strongly suspected problems, as of 1.0.3.13: please update this
bug instead of creating new ones
- gethostbyaddr in sb-bsd-sockets
-
284: Thread safety: special variables
There are lots of special variables in SBCL, and I feel sure that at
least some of them are indicative of potentially thread-unsafe
tries to find and remove a method with an incompatible lambda list
from the unrelated generic function.
-381: incautious calls to EQUAL in fasl dumping
- Compiling
- (frob #(#1=(a #1#)))
- (frob #(#1=(b #1#)))
- (frob #(#1=(a #1#)))
- in sbcl-0.9.0 causes CONTROL-STACK-EXHAUSTED. My (WHN) impression
- is that this follows from the use of (MAKE-HASH-TABLE :TEST 'EQUAL)
- to detect sharing, in which case fixing it might require either
- getting less ambitious about detecting shared list structure, or
- implementing the moral equivalent of EQUAL hash tables in a
- cycle-tolerant way.
-
382: externalization unexpectedly changes array simplicity
COMPILE-FILE and LOAD
(defun foo ()
This gives a type error (#:G1 is not a (NOT SYMBOL)) because of the
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))
+
+ causes a GC invariant violation on x86-64/Linux, and
+ an unhandled SIGILL on x86/Darwin.
+
+416: backtrace confusion
+
+ (defun foo (x)
+ (let ((v "foo"))
+ (flet ((bar (z)
+ (oops v z)
+ (oops z v)))
+ (bar x)
+ (bar v))))
+ (foo 13)
+
+ gives the correct error, but the backtrace shows
+ 1: (SB-KERNEL:FDEFINITION-OBJECT 13 NIL)
+ as the second frame.
+
+418: SUBSEQ on lists doesn't support bignum indexes
+
+ LIST-SUBSEQ* now has all the works necessary to support bignum indexes,
+ but it needs to be verified that changing the DEFKNOWN doesn't kill
+ performance elsewhere.
+
+ Other generic sequence functions have this problem as well.
+
+419: stack-allocated indirect closure variables are not popped
+
+ (locally (declare (optimize speed (safety 0)))
+ (defun bug419 (x)
+ (multiple-value-call #'list
+ (eval '(values 1 2 3))
+ (let ((x x))
+ (declare (dynamic-extent x))
+ (flet ((mget (y)
+ (+ x y))
+ (mset (z)
+ (incf x z)))
+ (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
+
+420: The MISC.556 test from gcl/ansi-tests/misc.lsp fails hard.
+
+In sbcl-1.0.13 on Linux/x86, executing
+ (FUNCALL
+ (COMPILE NIL
+ '(LAMBDA (P1 P2)
+ (DECLARE
+ (OPTIMIZE (SPEED 1) (SAFETY 0) (DEBUG 0) (SPACE 0))
+ (TYPE (MEMBER 8174.8604) P1) (TYPE (MEMBER -95195347) P2))
+ (FLOOR P1 P2)))
+ 8174.8604 -95195347)
+interactively causes
+ SB-SYS:MEMORY-FAULT-ERROR: Unhandled memory fault at #x8.
+The gcl/ansi-tests/doit.lisp program terminates prematurely shortly after
+MISC.556 by falling into gdb with
+ fatal error encountered in SBCL pid 2827: Unhandled SIGILL
+unless the MISC.556 test is commented out.
+
+Analysis: + and a number of other arithmetic functions exhibit the
+same behaviour. Here's the underlying problem: On x86 we perform
+single-float + integer normally using double-precision, and then
+coerce the result back to single-float. (The FILD instruction always
+gives us a double-float, and unless we do MOVE-FROM-SINGLE it remains
+one. Or so it seems to me, and that would also explain the observed
+behaviour below.)
+
+During IR1 we derive the types for both
+
+ (+ <single> <integer>) ; uses double-precision
+ (+ <single> (FLOAT <integer> <single>)) ; uses single-precision
+
+and get a mismatch for a number of unlucky arguments. This leads to
+derived result type NIL, and ends up flushing the whole whole
+operation -- and finally we generate code without a return sequence,
+and fall through to whatever.
+
+The use of double-precision in the first case appears to be an
+(un)happy accident -- interval arithmetic gives us the
+double-precision result because that's what the backend does.
+
+ (+ 8172.0 (coerce -95195347 'single-float)) ; => -9.518717e7
+ (+ 8172.0 -95195347) ; => -9.5187176e7
+ (coerce (+ 8172.0 (coerce -95195347 'double-float)) 'single-float)
+ ; => -9.5187176e7
+
+Which should be fixed, the IR1, or the backend?
+
+421: READ-CHAR-NO-HANG misbehaviour on Windows Console:
+
+ It seems that on Windows READ-CHAR-NO-HANG hangs if the user
+ has pressed a key, but not yet enter (ie. SYSREAD-MAY-BLOCK-P
+ seems to lie if the OS is buffering input for us on Console.)
+
+ reported by Elliot Slaughter on sbcl-devel 2008/1/10.
projects / sbcl.git / blobdiff