1.0.0.27: various PCL cleanups in cache.lisp

[sbcl.git] / tests / debug.impure.lisp

diff --git a/tests/debug.impure.lisp b/tests/debug.impure.lisp
index b9709f2..25ad2a7 100644 (file)
--- a/tests/debug.impure.lisp
+++ b/tests/debug.impure.lisp
@@ -14,6 +14,11 @@
 ;;;; more information.
 
 (cl:in-package :cl-user)
+
+;;; The debugger doesn't have any native knowledge of the interpreter
+(when (eq sb-ext:*evaluator-mode* :interpret)
+  (sb-ext:quit :unix-status 104))
+
 \f
 ;;;; Check that we get debug arglists right.
 
@@ -38,7 +43,13 @@
     ;; happen to be the two case that I had my nose rubbed in when
     ;; debugging a GC problem caused by applying %SIMPLE-FUN-ARGLIST to
     ;; a closure. -- WHN 2001-06-05)
-    (t :unknown)))
+    (t
+     #+sb-eval
+     (if (typep fun 'sb-eval::interpreted-function)
+         (sb-eval::interpreted-function-lambda-list fun)
+         :unknown)
+     #-sb-eval
+     :unknown)))
 
 (defun zoop (zeep &key beep)
   blurp)
@@ -108,8 +119,9 @@
 
                         ;; Make sure the backtrace isn't stunted in
                         ;; any way.  (Depends on running in the main
-                        ;; thread.)
-                        (let ((end (last backtrace 2)))
+                        ;; thread.) FIXME: On Windows we get two
+                        ;; extra foreign frames below regular frames.
+                        (let ((end (last backtrace #-win32 2 #+win32 4)))
                           (unless (equal (caar end)
                                          (if *show-entry-point-details*
                                              '(sb-c::tl-xep sb-impl::toplevel-init)
@@ -148,18 +160,23 @@
 
   ;; bug 353: This test fails at least most of the time for x86/linux
   ;; ca. 0.8.20.16. -- WHN
-  (with-test (:name (:undefined-function :bug-356)
-              :fails-on '(or (and :x86 :linux) :alpha))
+  (with-test (:name (:undefined-function :bug-353)
+              ;; This used to have fewer :fails-on features pre-0.9.16.38,
+              ;; but it turns out that the bug was just being masked by
+              ;; the presence of the IR1 stepper instrumentation (and
+              ;; is thus again failing now that the instrumentation is
+              ;; no more).
+              :fails-on '(or :x86 :x86-64 :alpha))
     (assert (verify-backtrace
              (lambda () (test #'not-optimized))
              (list *undefined-function-frame*
                    (list '(flet not-optimized))
                    (list '(flet test) #'not-optimized))))))
 
-;;; Division by zero was a common error on PPC.  It depended on the
+;;; Division by zero was a common error on PPC. It depended on the
 ;;; return function either being before INTEGER-/-INTEGER in memory,
-;;; or more than MOST-POSITIVE-FIXNUM bytes ahead.  It also depends on
-;;; INTEGER-/-INTEGER calling SIGNED-TRUNCATE.  I believe Raymond Toy
+;;; or more than MOST-POSITIVE-FIXNUM bytes ahead. It also depends on
+;;; INTEGER-/-INTEGER calling SIGNED-TRUNCATE. I believe Raymond Toy
 ;;; says that the Sparc backend (at least for CMUCL) inlines this, so
 ;;; if SBCL does the same this test is probably not good for the
 ;;; Sparc.
@@ -417,3 +434,5 @@
   (loop while (sb-thread:thread-alive-p thread)))
 
 (disable-debugger)
+
+(write-line "/debug.impure.lisp done")