Better type derivation for APPEND, NCONC, LIST.

[sbcl.git] / src / compiler / fndb.lisp

diff --git a/src/compiler/fndb.lisp b/src/compiler/fndb.lisp
index 8fede70..8221b10 100644 (file)
--- a/src/compiler/fndb.lisp
+++ b/src/compiler/fndb.lisp
@@ -706,6 +706,7 @@
 ;;; All but last must be of type LIST, but there seems to be no way to
 ;;; express that in this syntax.
 (defknown append (&rest t) t (flushable))
+(defknown sb!impl::append2 (list t) t (flushable))
 
 (defknown copy-list (list) list (flushable))
 (defknown copy-alist (list) list (flushable))
@@ -1367,7 +1368,7 @@
 (defknown (get-internal-run-time get-internal-real-time)
   () internal-time (flushable))
 
-(defknown sleep ((or (rational 0) (float 0.0))) null)
+(defknown sleep ((real 0)) null (explicit-check))
 
 ;;; Even though ANSI defines LISP-IMPLEMENTATION-TYPE and
 ;;; LISP-IMPLEMENTATION-VERSION to possibly punt and return NIL, we
@@ -1404,7 +1405,11 @@
 \f
 ;;;; magical compiler frobs
 
-(defknown %values-list-or-context (t t t) * (always-translatable))
+(defknown %rest-values (t t t) * (always-translatable))
+(defknown %rest-ref (t t t t) * (always-translatable))
+(defknown %rest-length (t t t) * (always-translatable))
+(defknown %rest-null (t t t t) * (always-translatable))
+(defknown %rest-true (t t t) * (always-translatable))
 
 (defknown %unary-truncate/single-float (single-float) integer (movable foldable flushable))
 (defknown %unary-truncate/double-float (double-float) integer (movable foldable flushable))
@@ -1589,6 +1594,11 @@
   ())
 (defknown style-warn (t &rest t) null ())
 
+(defknown coerce-to-condition ((or condition symbol string function)
+                               list type-specifier symbol)
+    condition
+    (explicit-check))
+
 (defknown sc-number-or-lose (symbol) sc-number
   (foldable))
 
@@ -1600,6 +1610,12 @@
 (defknown sb!vm:%write-barrier () (values) ())
 (defknown sb!vm:%data-dependency-barrier () (values) ())
 
+#!+sb-safepoint
+;;; Note: This known function does not have an out-of-line definition;
+;;; and if such a definition were needed, it would not need to "call"
+;;; itself inline, but could be a no-op, because the compiler inserts a
+;;; use of the VOP in the function prologue anyway.
+(defknown sb!kernel::gc-safepoint () (values) ())
 
 ;;;; atomic ops
 (defknown %compare-and-swap-svref (simple-vector index t t) t