; from "code/pathname"
("src/code/sharpm" :not-host) ; uses stuff from "code/reader"
- ;; stuff for byte compilation. Note that although byte code is
+ ;; stuff for byte compilation
+ ;;
+ ;; This is mostly :NOT-HOST because even though byte code is
;; "portable", it'd be hard to make it work on the cross-compilation
;; host, because fundamental BYTE-FUNCTION-OR-CLOSURE types are
- ;; implemented as FUNCALLABLE-INSTANCEs, and it's not obvious
- ;; how to emulate those in a vanilla ANSI Common Lisp.
+ ;; implemented as FUNCALLABLE-INSTANCEs, and it's not obvious how to
+ ;; emulate those in a vanilla ANSI Common Lisp.
("src/code/byte-types" :not-host)
("src/compiler/byte-comp")
("src/compiler/target-byte-comp" :not-host)
;; FIXME: Does this really need stuff from compiler/dump.lisp?
("src/compiler/target-dump" :not-host) ; needs stuff from compiler/dump.lisp
- ("src/code/cold-init" :not-host) ; needs (SETF EXTERN-ALIEN) macroexpansion
+ ("src/code/cold-init" :not-host ; needs (SETF EXTERN-ALIEN) macroexpansion
+ ;; FIXME: When building sbcl-0.pre7.14.flaky4.5 under sbcl-0.6.12.1
+ ;; with :SB-SHOW on the target *FEATURES* list, cross-compilation of
+ ;; this file gives a WARNING in HEXSTR,
+ ;; Lisp error during constant folding:
+ ;; Argument X is not a REAL: NIL
+ ;; This seems to come from DEF!MACRO %WITH-ARRAY-DATA-MACRO code
+ ;; which looks like
+ ;; (cond (,end
+ ;; (unless (or ,unsafe? (<= ,end ,size))
+ ;; ..))
+ ;; ..)
+ ;; where the system is trying to constant-fold the <= form when the
+ ;; ,END binding is known to be NIL at compile time. Since the <= form
+ ;; is unreachable in that case, this shouldn't be signalling a WARNING;
+ ;; but as long as it is, we have to ignore it in order to go on.
+ :ignore-failure-p)
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;; target macros and DECLAIMs installed at build-the-cross-compiler time