1.1.13: will be tagged as "sbcl-1.1.13"

[sbcl.git] / src / code / cross-condition.lisp

diff --git a/src/code/cross-condition.lisp b/src/code/cross-condition.lisp
index 1f865bc..a5f8b2b 100644 (file)
--- a/src/code/cross-condition.lisp
+++ b/src/code/cross-condition.lisp
@@ -17,29 +17,66 @@
 ;;; compiler, it will only be a style-warning.
 (define-condition format-too-many-args-warning (simple-warning) ())
 
-;;; OAOOM warning: see condition.lisp -- we want a full definition in
-;;; the cross-compiler as well, in order to have nice error messages
-;;; instead of complaints of undefined-function
+;;; KLUDGE: OAOOM warning: see condition.lisp -- we want a full
+;;; definition in the cross-compiler as well, in order to have nice
+;;; error messages instead of complaints of undefined-function
 ;;; ENCAPSULATED-CONDITION.
 (define-condition encapsulated-condition (condition)
   ((condition :initarg :condition :reader encapsulated-condition)))
 
+;;; KLUDGE: another OAOOM problem, this time to allow conditions with
+;;; REFERENCE-CONDITION in their supercondition list on the host.
+;;; (This doesn't feel like the entirely right solution, it has to be
+;;; said.)  -- CSR, 2004-09-15
+(define-condition reference-condition ()
+  ((references :initarg :references :reader reference-condition-references)))
+
+;;; KLUDGE: yet another OAOOM.
+;;;
+;;; FIXME: This is clearly one OAOOM KLUDGE too many in a row. When tempted
+;;; to add another one invent DEF!CONDITION or whatever seems necessary,
+;;; and replace these.
+(define-condition type-warning (reference-condition simple-warning)
+  ()
+  (:default-initargs :references (list '(:sbcl :node "Handling of Types"))))
+(define-condition type-style-warning (reference-condition simple-style-warning)
+  ()
+  (:default-initargs :references (list '(:sbcl :node "Handling of Types"))))
+
 (define-condition bug (simple-error)
   ()
   (:report
    (lambda (condition stream)
      (format stream
-            "~@<  ~? ~:@_~?~:>"
-            (simple-condition-format-control condition)
-            (simple-condition-format-arguments condition)
-            "~@<If you see this and are an SBCL ~
+             "~@<  ~? ~:@_~?~:>"
+             (simple-condition-format-control condition)
+             (simple-condition-format-arguments condition)
+             "~@<If you see this and are an SBCL ~
 developer, then it is probable that you have made a change to the ~
 system that has broken the ability for SBCL to compile, usually by ~
 removing an assumed invariant of the system, but sometimes by making ~
 an averrance that is violated (check your code!). If you are a user, ~
 please submit a bug report to the developers' mailing list, details of ~
 which can be found at <http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/>.~:@>"
-            ()))))
+             ()))))
+
+;;; OAOOM...
+(define-condition compiler-macro-keyword-problem ()
+  ((argument :initarg :argument :reader compiler-macro-keyword-argument))
+  (:report (lambda (condition stream)
+             (format stream "~@<Argument ~S in keyword position is not ~
+                             a self-evaluating symbol, preventing compiler-macro ~
+                             expansion.~@:>"
+                     (compiler-macro-keyword-argument condition)))))
+
+;;; OAOOM...
+(define-condition duplicate-definition (reference-condition warning)
+  ((name :initarg :name :reader duplicate-definition-name))
+  (:report (lambda (c s)
+             (format s "~@<Duplicate definition for ~S found in ~
+                        one file.~@:>"
+                     (duplicate-definition-name c))))
+  (:default-initargs :references (list '(:ansi-cl :section (3 2 2 3)))))
 
 ;;; These are should never be instantiated before the real definitions
 ;;; come in.