strongly suspected problems, as of 0.8.3.10: please update this
bug instead of creating new ones
- localtime() - called for timezone calculations in code/time.lisp
+ gethostbyname, gethostbyaddr in sb-bsd-sockets
284: Thread safety: special variables
There are lots of special variables in SBCL, and I feel sure that at
#.SB-EXT:SINGLE/DOUBLE-FLOAT-POSITIVE-INFINITY. These tests have been
disabled on Darwin for now.
-375: MISC.555
- (compile nil '(lambda (p1)
- (declare (optimize (speed 1) (safety 2) (debug 2) (space 0))
- (type keyword p1))
- (keywordp p1)))
-
- fails on hairy type check in IR2.
-
- 1. KEYWORDP is MAYBE-INLINE expanded (before TYPEP-like
- transformation could eliminate it).
-
- 2. From the only call of KEYWORDP the type of its argument is
- derived to be KEYWORD.
-
- 2. Type check for P1 is generated; it uses KEYWORDP to perform the
- check, and so references the local function; from the KEYWORDP
- argument type new CAST to KEYWORD is generated. The compiler
- loops forever.
-
377: Memory fault error reporting
On those architectures where :C-STACK-IS-CONTROL-STACK is in
*FEATURES*, we handle SIG_MEMORY_FAULT (SEGV or BUS) on an altstack,
the right fix is to remove the abstraction violation in the
compiler's type deriver.
-392: slot-accessor for subclass misses obsoleted superclass
- (fixed in sbcl-0.9.7.9)
-
393: Wrong error from methodless generic function
(DEFGENERIC FOO (X))
(FOO 1 2)
For some more details see comments for (define-alien-type-method
(c-string :deport-gen) ...) in host-c-call.lisp.
-399: LOOP FOR ACROSS and full call to DATA-VECTOR-REF
- (fixed in sbcl-0.9.9.x)
-
-400: "aggressive constant folding"
- (compile nil '(lambda () (or t (the integer (/ 1 0)))))
- signals an error.
+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*
+ (make-condition 'simple-error
+ :format-control "ow... ~S"
+ :format-arguments '(#1=(#1#))))
+ (setf *print-circle* t *print-level* 4)
+ (format nil "~@<~A~:@>" *c*)
+ gives
+ "ow... (((#)))"
+ where I (WHN) believe the correct result is "ow... #1=(#1#)",
+ like the result from (PRINC-TO-STRING *C*). The question of
+ what the correct result is is complicated by the hairy text in
+ the Hyperspec "22.3.5.2 Tilde Less-Than-Sign: Logical Block",
+ Other than the difference in its argument, ~@<...~:> is
+ exactly the same as ~<...~:> except that circularity detection
+ is not applied if ~@<...~:> is encountered at top level in a
+ format string.
+ But because the odd behavior happens even without the at-sign,
+ (format nil "~<~A~:@>" (list *c*)) ; => "ow... (((#)))"
+ and because something seemingly similar can happen even in
+ PPRINT-LOGICAL-BLOCK invoked directly without FORMAT,
+ (pprint-logical-block (*standard-output* '(some nonempty list))
+ (format *standard-output* "~A" '#1=(#1#)))
+ (which prints "(((#)))" to *STANDARD-OUTPUT*), I don't think
+ that the 22.3.5.2 trickiness is fundamental to the problem.
+
+ My guess is that the problem is related to the logic around the MODE
+ argument to CHECK-FOR-CIRCULARITY, but I haven't reverse-engineered
+ enough of the intended meaning of the different MODE values to be
+ confident of this.
+
+404: nonstandard DWIMness in LOOP with unportably-ordered clauses
+ In sbcl-0.9.13, the code
+ (loop with stack = (make-array 2 :fill-pointer 2 :initial-element t)
+ for length = (length stack)
+ while (plusp length)
+ for element = (vector-pop stack)
+ collect element)
+ compiles without error or warning and returns (T T). Unfortunately,
+ it is inconsistent with the ANSI definition of the LOOP macro,
+ because it mixes up VARIABLE-CLAUSEs with MAIN-CLAUSEs. Furthermore,
+ SBCL's interpretation of the intended meaning is only one possible,
+ unportable interpretation of the noncompliant code; in CLISP 2.33.2,
+ the code compiles with a warning
+ LOOP: FOR clauses should occur before the loop's main body
+ and then fails at runtime with
+ VECTOR-POP: #() has length zero
+ perhaps because CLISP has shuffled the clauses into an
+ ANSI-compliant order before proceeding.
projects / sbcl.git / blobdiff