;;;; DEFUN
;;; Should we save the inline expansion of the function named NAME?
-(defun inline-function-name-p (name)
+(defun inline-fun-name-p (name)
(or
;; the normal reason for saving the inline expansion
(info :function :inlinep name)
;; (DEFUN FOO ..)
;; without a preceding
;; (DECLAIM (INLINE FOO))
- ;; what should we do with the old inline expansion? Overwriting it
- ;; with the new definition seems like the only unsurprising choice.
- (info :function :inline-expansion name)))
+ ;; what should we do with the old inline expansion when we see the
+ ;; new DEFUN? Overwriting it with the new definition seems like
+ ;; the only unsurprising choice.
+ (info :function :inline-expansion-designator name)))
;;; Now that we have the definition of MULTIPLE-VALUE-BIND, we can
;;; make a reasonably readable definition of DEFUN.
(defmacro-mundanely defun (&environment env name args &body body)
"Define a function at top level."
#+sb-xc-host
- (unless (symbol-package (function-name-block-name name))
+ (unless (symbol-package (fun-name-block-name name))
(warn "DEFUN of uninterned symbol ~S (tricky for GENESIS)" name))
(multiple-value-bind (forms decls doc) (parse-body body)
(let* ((lambda `(lambda ,args
,@decls
- (block ,(function-name-block-name name)
+ (block ,(fun-name-block-name name)
,@forms)))
(want-to-inline )
(inline-lambda
(cond (;; Does the user not even want to inline?
- (not (inline-function-name-p name))
+ (not (inline-fun-name-p name))
nil)
(;; Does inlining look too hairy to handle?
(not (sb!c:lambda-independent-of-lexenv-p lambda env))
(declare (type function def))
(declare (type (or null simple-string doc)))
(/show0 "entering %DEFUN, name (or block name) = ..")
- (/primitive-print (symbol-name (function-name-block-name name)))
- (aver (legal-function-name-p name))
+ (/primitive-print (symbol-name (fun-name-block-name name)))
+ (aver (legal-fun-name-p name))
(when (fboundp name)
(/show0 "redefining NAME")
(style-warn "redefining ~S in DEFUN" name))