'string
user-home
"/.sbclrc"))))
- (/show0 "assigned SYSINIT-TRUENAME and USERINIT-TRUENAME")
-
;; We wrap all the pre-REPL user/system customized startup code
;; in a restart.
(eval eval)
(flush-standard-output-streams)))
(continue ()
- :report "Continue anyway (skipping to toplevel read/eval/print loop)."
- (values)) ; (no-op, just fall through)
+ :report
+ "Continue anyway (skipping to toplevel read/eval/print loop)."
+ (/show0 "CONTINUEing from pre-REPL RESTART-CASE")
+ (values)) ; (no-op, just fall through)
(quit ()
- :report "Quit SBCL (calling #'QUIT, killing the process)."
- (quit))))
+ :report "Quit SBCL (calling #'QUIT, killing the process)."
+ (/show0 "falling through to QUIT from pre-REPL RESTART-CASE")
+ (quit))))
;; one more time for good measure, in case we fell out of the
;; RESTART-CASE above before one of the flushes in the ordinary
(flush-standard-output-streams)
(/show0 "falling into TOPLEVEL-REPL from TOPLEVEL-INIT")
- (toplevel-repl noprint))))
+ (toplevel-repl noprint)
+ ;; (classic CMU CL error message: "You're certainly a clever child.":-)
+ (critically-unreachable "after TOPLEVEL-REPL"))))
;;; read-eval-print loop for the default system toplevel
(defun toplevel-repl (noprint)
(let ((* nil) (** nil) (*** nil)
(- nil)
(+ nil) (++ nil) (+++ nil)
- (/// nil) (// nil) (/ nil)
- (eof-marker (cons :eof nil)))
+ (/// nil) (// nil) (/ nil))
+ ;; WITH-SIMPLE-RESTART doesn't actually restart its body as some
+ ;; (like WHN for an embarrassingly long time ca. 2001-12-07) might
+ ;; think, but instead drops control back out at the end. So when a
+ ;; TOPLEVEL or outermost-ABORT restart happens, we need this outer
+ ;; LOOP wrapper to grab control and start over again. (And it also
+ ;; wraps CATCH 'TOPLEVEL-CATCHER for similar reasons.)
+ (loop
+ (/show0 "about to set up restarts in TOPLEVEL-REPL")
+ ;; There should only be one TOPLEVEL restart, and it's here, so
+ ;; restarting at TOPLEVEL always bounces you all the way out here.
+ (with-simple-restart (toplevel
+ "Restart at toplevel READ/EVAL/PRINT loop.")
+ ;; We add a new ABORT restart for every debugger level, so
+ ;; restarting at ABORT in a nested debugger gets you out to the
+ ;; innermost enclosing debugger, and only when you're in the
+ ;; outermost, unnested debugger level does restarting at ABORT
+ ;; get you out to here.
+ (with-simple-restart
+ (abort
+ "Reduce debugger level (leaving debugger, returning to toplevel).")
+ (catch 'toplevel-catcher
+ (sb!unix:unix-sigsetmask 0) ; FIXME: What is this for?
+ (repl noprint)
+ (critically-unreachable "after REPL")))))))
+
+(defun repl (noprint)
+ (/show0 "entering REPL")
+ (let ((eof-marker (cons :eof nil)))
(loop
- (/show0 "at head of outer LOOP in TOPLEVEL-REPL")
- ;; There should only be one TOPLEVEL restart, and it's here, so
- ;; restarting at TOPLEVEL always bounces you all the way out here.
- (with-simple-restart (toplevel
- "Restart at toplevel READ/EVAL/PRINT loop.")
- ;; We add a new ABORT restart for every debugger level, so
- ;; restarting at ABORT in a nested debugger gets you out to the
- ;; innermost enclosing debugger, and only when you're in the
- ;; outermost, unnested debugger level does restarting at ABORT
- ;; get you out to here.
- (with-simple-restart (abort
- "Reduce debugger level (leaving debugger).")
- (catch 'toplevel-catcher
- (sb!unix:unix-sigsetmask 0) ; FIXME: What is this for?
- (/show0 "about to enter inner LOOP in TOPLEVEL-REPL")
- (loop ; FIXME: Do we need this inner LOOP?
- ;; FIXME: It seems bad to have GC behavior depend on scrubbing
- ;; the control stack before each interactive command. Isn't
- ;; there some way we can convince the GC to just ignore
- ;; dead areas of the control stack, so that we don't need to
- ;; rely on this half-measure?
- (scrub-control-stack)
- (unless noprint
- (fresh-line)
- (princ (if (functionp *prompt*)
- (funcall *prompt*)
- *prompt*))
- (flush-standard-output-streams))
- (let ((form (read *standard-input* nil eof-marker)))
- (if (eq form eof-marker)
- (quit)
- (let ((results
- (multiple-value-list (interactive-eval form))))
- (unless noprint
- (dolist (result results)
- (fresh-line)
- (prin1 result)))))))))))))
+ ;; FIXME: It seems bad to have GC behavior depend on scrubbing the
+ ;; control stack before each interactive command. Isn't there some
+ ;; way we can convince the GC to just ignore dead areas of the
+ ;; control stack, so that we don't need to rely on this
+ ;; half-measure?
+ (scrub-control-stack)
+ (unless noprint
+ (fresh-line)
+ (princ (if (functionp *prompt*)
+ (funcall *prompt*)
+ *prompt*))
+ (flush-standard-output-streams))
+ (let ((form (read *standard-input* nil eof-marker)))
+ (cond ((eq form eof-marker)
+ (/show0 "doing QUIT for EOF in REPL")
+ (quit))
+ (t
+ (let ((results (multiple-value-list (interactive-eval form))))
+ (unless noprint
+ (dolist (result results)
+ (fresh-line)
+ (prin1 result))))))))))
(defun noprogrammer-debugger-hook-fun (condition old-debugger-hook)
(declare (ignore old-debugger-hook))
(flet ((failure-quit (&key recklessly-p)
+ (/show0 "in FAILURE-QUIT (in noprogrammer debugger hook)")
(quit :unix-status 1 :recklessly-p recklessly-p)))
;; This HANDLER-CASE is here mostly to stop output immediately
;; (and fall through to QUIT) when there's an I/O error. Thus,