0.7.8.54:

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

diff --git a/tests/defstruct.impure.lisp b/tests/defstruct.impure.lisp
index bca97ca..c86fb9e 100644 (file)
--- a/tests/defstruct.impure.lisp
+++ b/tests/defstruct.impure.lisp
@@ -360,6 +360,34 @@
   (error "YA-STRUCT-P of no arguments should signal an error."))
 (when (ignore-errors (or (ya-struct-p 'too 'many 'arguments) 12))
   (error "YA-STRUCT-P of three arguments should signal an error."))
+
+;;; bug 210: Until sbcl-0.7.8.32 BOA constructors had SAFETY 0
+;;; declared inside on the theory that slot types were already
+;;; checked, which bogusly suppressed unbound-variable and other
+;;; checks within the evaluation of initforms.
+(defvar *bug210*)
+(defstruct (bug210a (:constructor bug210a ()))
+  (slot *bug210*))
+(defstruct bug210b
+  (slot *bug210*))
+;;; Because of bug 210, this assertion used to fail.
+(assert (typep (nth-value 1 (ignore-errors (bug210a))) 'unbound-variable))
+;;; Even with bug 210, these assertions succeeded.
+(assert (typep (nth-value 1 (ignore-errors *bug210*)) 'unbound-variable))
+(assert (typep (nth-value 1 (ignore-errors (make-bug210b))) 'unbound-variable))
+
+;;; In sbcl-0.7.8.53, DEFSTRUCT blew up in non-toplevel contexts
+;;; because it implicitly assumed that EVAL-WHEN (COMPILE) stuff
+;;; setting up compiler-layout information would run before the
+;;; constructor function installing the layout was compiled. Make sure
+;;; that doesn't happen again.
+(defun foo-0-7-8-53 () (defstruct foo-0-7-8-53 x (y :not)))
+(assert (not (find-class 'foo-0-7-8-53 nil)))
+(foo-0-7-8-53)
+(assert (find-class 'foo-0-7-8-53 nil))
+(let ((foo-0-7-8-53 (make-foo-0-7-8-53 :x :s)))
+  (assert (eq (foo-0-7-8-53-x foo-0-7-8-53) :s))
+  (assert (eq (foo-0-7-8-53-y foo-0-7-8-53) :not)))
 \f
 ;;; success
 (format t "~&/returning success~%")