0.7.3.1:

[sbcl.git] / src / code / early-extensions.lisp

diff --git a/src/code/early-extensions.lisp b/src/code/early-extensions.lisp
index 4d84e8c..26eb070 100644 (file)
--- a/src/code/early-extensions.lisp
+++ b/src/code/early-extensions.lisp
@@ -13,18 +13,6 @@
 
 (in-package "SB!IMPL")
 
-;;; Lots of code wants to get to the KEYWORD package or the
-;;; COMMON-LISP package without a lot of fuss, so we cache them in
-;;; variables. TO DO: How much does this actually buy us? It sounds
-;;; sensible, but I don't know for sure that it saves space or time..
-;;; -- WHN 19990521
-;;;
-;;; (The initialization forms here only matter on the cross-compilation
-;;; host; In the target SBCL, these variables are set in cold init.)
-(declaim (type package *cl-package* *keyword-package*))
-(defvar *cl-package*      (find-package "COMMON-LISP"))
-(defvar *keyword-package* (find-package "KEYWORD"))
-
 ;;; something not EQ to anything we might legitimately READ
 (defparameter *eof-object* (make-symbol "EOF-OBJECT"))
 
@@ -79,7 +67,9 @@
 ;;; (or just find a nicer way of expressing characters portably?) --
 ;;; WHN 19990713
 (defconstant bell-char-code 7)
+(defconstant backspace-char-code 8)
 (defconstant tab-char-code 9)
+(defconstant line-feed-char-code 10)
 (defconstant form-feed-char-code 12)
 (defconstant return-char-code 13)
 (defconstant escape-char-code 27)
@@ -712,14 +702,39 @@
 (defmacro aver (expr)
   `(unless ,expr
      (%failed-aver ,(format nil "~A" expr))))
+
 (defun %failed-aver (expr-as-string)
-  (error "~@<internal error, failed AVER: ~2I~_~S~:>" expr-as-string))
+  (bug "~@<failed AVER: ~2I~_~S~:>" expr-as-string))
+
+;;; We need a definition of BUG here for the host compiler to be able
+;;; to deal with BUGs in sbcl. This should never affect an end-user,
+;;; who will pick up the definition that signals a CONDITION of
+;;; condition-class BUG; however, this is not defined on the host
+;;; lisp, but for the target. SBCL developers sometimes trigger BUGs
+;;; in their efforts, and it is useful to get the details of the BUG
+;;; rather than an undefined function error. - CSR, 2002-04-12
+#+sb-xc-host
+(defun bug (format-control &rest format-arguments)
+  (error 'simple-error
+        :format-control "~@<  ~? ~:@_~?~:>"
+        :format-arguments `(,format-control
+                            ,format-arguments
+                            "~@<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/>.~:@>"
+                            ())))
+
 (defmacro enforce-type (value type)
   (once-only ((value value))
     `(unless (typep ,value ',type)
        (%failed-enforce-type ,value ',type))))
+
 (defun %failed-enforce-type (value type)
-  (error 'simple-type-error
+  (error 'simple-type-error ; maybe should be TYPE-BUG, subclass of BUG?
         :value value
         :expected-type type
         :format-string "~@<~S ~_is not a ~_~S~:>"