;;; by QUIT) is caught and any final processing and return codes are
;;; handled appropriately.
(defmacro handling-end-of-the-world (&body body)
- (let ((caught (gensym "CAUGHT")))
+ (with-unique-names (caught)
`(let ((,caught (catch '%end-of-the-world
(/show0 "inside CATCH '%END-OF-THE-WORLD")
,@body)))
(let* ((csp (sap-int (sb!c::control-stack-pointer-sap)))
(initial-offset (logand csp (1- bytes-per-scrub-unit)))
(end-of-stack
- (- sb!vm::*control-stack-end* sb!c:*backend-page-size*)))
+ (- sb!vm:*control-stack-end* sb!c:*backend-page-size*)))
(labels
((scrub (ptr offset count)
(declare (type system-area-pointer ptr)
#!+stack-grows-downward-not-upward
(let* ((csp (sap-int (sb!c::control-stack-pointer-sap)))
- (end-of-stack (+ sb!vm::*control-stack-start* sb!c:*backend-page-size*))
+ (end-of-stack (+ sb!vm:*control-stack-start* sb!c:*backend-page-size*))
(initial-offset (logand csp (1- bytes-per-scrub-unit))))
(labels
((scrub (ptr offset count)
;; have unwound enough stack by the time we get here that this
;; is now possible
(sb!kernel::protect-control-stack-guard-page 1)
- (repl :noprint noprint :break-level 0)
+ (funcall *repl-fun* noprint)
(critically-unreachable "after REPL")))))))
;;; Our default REPL prompt is the minimal traditional one.
(quit)
form)))
-
;;; hooks to support customized toplevels like ACL-style toplevel
;;; from KMR on sbcl-devel 2002-12-21
(defvar *repl-read-form-fun* #'repl-read-form-fun
(defvar *repl-prompt-fun* #'repl-prompt-fun
"a function of one argument STREAM for the toplevel REPL to call: Prompt
the user for input.")
-
-(defvar *noprint* nil "boolean: T if don't print prompt and output")
-(defvar *break-level* 0 "current break level")
-(defvar *inspect-break* nil "boolean: T if break caused by inspect")
-(defvar *continuable-break* nil "boolean: T if break caused by continuable error")
-
-(defun repl (&key
- (break-level (1+ *break-level*))
- (noprint *noprint*)
- (inspect nil)
- (continuable nil))
- (let ((*noprint* noprint)
- (*break-level* break-level)
- (*inspect-break* inspect)
- (*continuable-break* continuable))
- (/show0 "entering REPL")
- (loop
- ;; (See comment preceding the definition of SCRUB-CONTROL-STACK.)
- (scrub-control-stack)
- (unless *noprint*
- (funcall *repl-prompt-fun* *standard-output*)
- ;; (Should *REPL-PROMPT-FUN* be responsible for doing its own
- ;; FORCE-OUTPUT? I can't imagine a valid reason for it not to
- ;; be done here, so leaving it up to *REPL-PROMPT-FUN* seems
- ;; odd. But maybe there *is* a valid reason in some
- ;; circumstances? perhaps some deadlock issue when being driven
- ;; by another process or something...)
- (force-output *standard-output*))
- (let* ((form (funcall *repl-read-form-fun*
- *standard-input*
- *standard-output*))
- (results (multiple-value-list (interactive-eval form))))
- (unless *noprint*
- (dolist (result results)
- (fresh-line)
- (prin1 result)))))))
+(defvar *repl-fun* #'repl-fun
+ "a function of one argument NOPRINT that provides the REPL for the system.
+ Assumes that *standard-input* and *standard-output* are setup.")
+
+(defun repl-fun (noprint)
+ (/show0 "entering REPL")
+ (loop
+ ;; (See comment preceding the definition of SCRUB-CONTROL-STACK.)
+ (scrub-control-stack)
+ (unless noprint
+ (funcall *repl-prompt-fun* *standard-output*)
+ ;; (Should *REPL-PROMPT-FUN* be responsible for doing its own
+ ;; FORCE-OUTPUT? I can't imagine a valid reason for it not to
+ ;; be done here, so leaving it up to *REPL-PROMPT-FUN* seems
+ ;; odd. But maybe there *is* a valid reason in some
+ ;; circumstances? perhaps some deadlock issue when being driven
+ ;; by another process or something...)
+ (force-output *standard-output*))
+ (let* ((form (funcall *repl-read-form-fun*
+ *standard-input*
+ *standard-output*))
+ (results (multiple-value-list (interactive-eval form))))
+ (unless noprint
+ (dolist (result results)
+ (fresh-line)
+ (prin1 result))))))
;;; suitable value for *DEBUGGER-HOOK* for a noninteractive Unix-y program
(defun noprogrammer-debugger-hook-fun (condition old-debugger-hook)