0.8.16.25:

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

diff --git a/src/code/cross-condition.lisp b/src/code/cross-condition.lisp
index 6867cb4..e74fc3c 100644 (file)
--- a/src/code/cross-condition.lisp
+++ b/src/code/cross-condition.lisp
@@ -17,6 +17,20 @@
 ;;; compiler, it will only be a style-warning.
 (define-condition format-too-many-args-warning (simple-warning) ())
 
+;;; 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)))
+
 (define-condition bug (simple-error)
   ()
   (:report
@@ -33,3 +47,9 @@ 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/>.~:@>"
             ()))))
+
+;;; These are should never be instantiated before the real definitions
+;;; come in.
+(deftype package-lock-violation () nil)
+(deftype package-locked-error () nil)
+(deftype symbol-package-locked-error () nil)