(let ((source (first (sb!c::compiled-debug-info-source info))))
(cond ((and (eq (sb!c::debug-source-from source) :lisp)
(eq (sb!c::debug-source-info source) fun))
- (values (second (svref (sb!c::debug-source-name source) 0))
+ (values (svref (sb!c::debug-source-name source) 0)
nil
name))
+ ;; FIXME: shouldn't these two clauses be the other way
+ ;; round? Using VALID-FUNCTION-NAME-P to see if we
+ ;; want to find an inline-expansion?
((stringp name)
(values nil t name))
(t
(funcallable-instance-fun fun)))))
(defun (setf %fun-name) (new-name fun)
+ (aver nil) ; since this is unsafe 'til bug 137 is fixed
(let ((widetag (widetag-of fun)))
(case widetag
((#.sb!vm:simple-fun-header-widetag
"Return a string giving the name of the local machine."
(sb!unix:unix-gethostname))
+(defvar *machine-version*)
+
+(defun machine-version ()
+ #!+sb-doc
+ "Return a string describing the version of the computer hardware we
+are running on, or NIL if we can't find any useful information."
+ (unless (boundp '*machine-version*)
+ (setf *machine-version* (get-machine-version)))
+ *machine-version*)
+
;;; FIXME: Don't forget to set these in a sample site-init file.
;;; FIXME: Perhaps the functions could be SETFable instead of having the
;;; interface be through special variables? As far as I can tell