0.8.20.11:

[sbcl.git] / contrib / sb-rotate-byte / compiler.lisp

diff --git a/contrib/sb-rotate-byte/compiler.lisp b/contrib/sb-rotate-byte/compiler.lisp
index 95dcf65..7165b36 100644 (file)
--- a/contrib/sb-rotate-byte/compiler.lisp
+++ b/contrib/sb-rotate-byte/compiler.lisp
@@ -29,10 +29,10 @@
 (defoptimizer (%rotate-byte derive-type) ((count size posn num))
   ;; FIXME: this looks fairly unwieldy.  I'm sure it can be made
   ;; simpler, and also be made to deal with negative integers too.
-  (let ((size (sb-c::continuation-type size)))
+  (let ((size (sb-c::lvar-type size)))
     (if (numeric-type-p size)
        (let ((size-high (numeric-type-high size))
-             (num-type (sb-c::continuation-type num)))
+             (num-type (sb-c::lvar-type num)))
          (if (and size-high
                   num-type
                   (<= size-high sb-vm:n-word-bits)
@@ -48,9 +48,11 @@
   'integer)
 
 (deftransform %rotate-byte ((count size pos integer)
-                           ((or (integer -31 -1) (integer 1 31))
+                           ((integer -31 31)
                             (constant-arg (member 32))
                             (constant-arg (member 0))
                             (unsigned-byte 32)) *)
   "inline 32-bit rotation"
+  ;; FIXME: What happens when, as here, the two type specifiers for
+  ;; COUNT overlap?  Which gets to run first?
   '(%unsigned-32-rotate-byte count integer))