;; default of WRAPPER-INVALID. Instead of trying
;; to find out, I just overrode the LAYOUT
;; default here. -- WHN 19991204
- (invalid nil))
+ (invalid nil)
+ ;; This allows quick testing of wrapperness.
+ (for-std-class-p t))
(:constructor make-wrapper-internal)
(:copier nil))
(instance-slots-layout nil :type list)
(when (pcl-instance-p instance)
(get-slots instance)))
-(defmacro built-in-or-structure-wrapper (x) `(layout-of ,x))
-
(defmacro get-wrapper (inst)
(once-only ((wrapper `(wrapper-of ,inst)))
`(progn
:metaclass-name static-classoid
:metaclass-constructor make-static-classoid
:dd-type funcallable-structure)
-\f
-;;; WITH-PCL-LOCK is used around some forms that were previously
-;;; protected by WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS, but in a threaded SBCL we don't
-;;; have a useful WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS. In an unthreaded SBCL I'm not
-;;; sure what the desired effect is anyway: should we be protecting
-;;; against the possibility of recursive calls into these functions
-;;; or are we using WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS as WITHOUT-SCHEDULING?
-;;;
-;;; Users: FORCE-CACHE-FLUSHES, MAKE-INSTANCES-OBSOLETE. Note that
-;;; it's not all certain this is sufficent for threadsafety: do we
-;;; just have to protect against simultaneous calls to these mutators,
-;;; or actually to stop normal slot access etc at the same time as one
-;;; of them runs
-
-#+sb-thread
-(progn
- (defvar *pcl-lock* (sb-thread::make-spinlock))
-
- (defmacro with-pcl-lock (&body body)
- `(sb-thread::with-spinlock (*pcl-lock*)
- ,@body)))
-#-sb-thread
-(defmacro with-pcl-lock (&body body)
- `(progn ,@body))