;;; a fixup of some kind
(defstruct (fixup
- (:constructor make-fixup (name flavor &optional offset))
- (:copier nil))
+ (:constructor make-fixup (name flavor &optional offset))
+ (:copier nil))
;; the name and flavor of the fixup. The assembler makes no
;; assumptions about the contents of these fields; their semantics
;; are imposed by the dumper.
offset)
(defstruct (fixup-note
- (:constructor make-fixup-note (kind fixup position))
- (:copier nil))
+ (:constructor make-fixup-note (kind fixup position))
+ (:copier nil))
kind
fixup
position)
;;; they find themselves trying to deal with a fixup.
(defun note-fixup (segment kind fixup)
(sb!assem:emit-back-patch segment
- 0
- (lambda (segment posn)
- (declare (ignore segment))
- ;; Why use EMIT-BACK-PATCH to cause this PUSH to
- ;; be done later, instead of just doing it now?
- ;; I'm not sure. Perhaps there's some concern
- ;; that POSN isn't known accurately now? Perhaps
- ;; there's a desire for all fixing up to go
- ;; through EMIT-BACK-PATCH whether it needs to or
- ;; not? -- WHN 19990905
- #!+sb-show
- (when *show-fixups-being-pushed-p*
- (/show "PUSHING FIXUP" kind fixup posn))
- (push (make-fixup-note kind fixup posn) *fixup-notes*)))
+ 0
+ (lambda (segment posn)
+ (declare (ignore segment))
+ ;; Why use EMIT-BACK-PATCH to cause this PUSH to
+ ;; be done later, instead of just doing it now?
+ ;; I'm not sure. Perhaps there's some concern
+ ;; that POSN isn't known accurately now? Perhaps
+ ;; there's a desire for all fixing up to go
+ ;; through EMIT-BACK-PATCH whether it needs to or
+ ;; not? -- WHN 19990905
+ #!+sb-show
+ (when *show-fixups-being-pushed-p*
+ (/show "PUSHING FIXUP" kind fixup posn))
+ (push (make-fixup-note kind fixup posn) *fixup-notes*)))
(values))