0.8.8.27:

[sbcl.git] / src / code / target-misc.lisp

diff --git a/src/code/target-misc.lisp b/src/code/target-misc.lisp
index 2051486..8c798e2 100644 (file)
--- a/src/code/target-misc.lisp
+++ b/src/code/target-misc.lisp
@@ -35,6 +35,9 @@
                  (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
@@ -51,8 +54,7 @@
   (case (widetag-of fun)
     (#.sb!vm:closure-header-widetag
      (%simple-fun-name (%closure-fun fun)))
-    ((#.sb!vm:simple-fun-header-widetag
-      #.sb!vm:closure-fun-header-widetag)
+    (#.sb!vm:simple-fun-header-widetag
      ;; KLUDGE: The pun that %SIMPLE-FUN-NAME is used for closure
      ;; functions is left over from CMU CL (modulo various renaming
      ;; that's gone on since the fork).
@@ -65,8 +67,7 @@
   (aver nil) ; since this is unsafe 'til bug 137 is fixed
   (let ((widetag (widetag-of fun)))
     (case widetag
-      ((#.sb!vm:simple-fun-header-widetag
-       #.sb!vm:closure-fun-header-widetag)
+      (#.sb!vm:simple-fun-header-widetag
        ;; KLUDGE: The pun that %SIMPLE-FUN-NAME is used for closure
        ;; functions is left over from CMU CL (modulo various renaming
        ;; that's gone on since the fork).
@@ -120,6 +121,16 @@
   "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