0.9.18.42:

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

diff --git a/tests/debug.impure.lisp b/tests/debug.impure.lisp
index f01b9b3..9c6473d 100644 (file)
--- a/tests/debug.impure.lisp
+++ b/tests/debug.impure.lisp
@@ -159,18 +159,23 @@
 
   ;; 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.