X-Git-Url: http://repo.macrolet.net/gitweb/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=BUGS;h=ad30c7b996929c947c9d2499e7cb51ec7b791be7;hb=f0338f6fa732b21daa4405e19465bd460e0526d9;hp=37e8fed529d48ae7aee5933ac5bedba05fb236db;hpb=54a2e62234dc9a399ae12e56fe212d2137b43556;p=sbcl.git

diff --git a/BUGS b/BUGS
index 37e8fed..ad30c7b 100644
--- a/BUGS
+++ b/BUGS
@@ -225,10 +225,12 @@ WORKAROUND:
 
 26:
   reported by Sam Steingold on the cmucl-imp mailing list 12 May 2000:
-
-Also, there is another bug: `array-displacement' should return an array
-or nil as first value (as per ANSI CL), while CMUCL declares it as
-returning an array as first value always.
+    Also, there is another bug: `array-displacement' should return an
+    array or nil as first value (as per ANSI CL), while CMUCL declares
+    it as returning an array as first value always.
+  (Actually, I think the old CMU CL version in SBCL never returns NIL,
+  i.e. it's not just a declaration problem, but the definition doesn't
+  behave ANSIly.)
 
 27:
   Sometimes (SB-EXT:QUIT) fails with 
@@ -811,13 +813,6 @@ Error in function C::GET-LAMBDA-TO-COMPILE:
   (I haven't tried to investigate this bug enough to guess whether
   there might be any user-level symptoms.)
 
-87:
-  Despite what the manual says, (DECLAIM (SPEED 0)) doesn't cause
-  things to be byte compiled. This seems to be true in cmucl-2.4.19,
-  too: (COMPILE-FILE .. :BYTE-COMPILE T) causes byte-compilation,
-  but ordinary COMPILE-FILE of a file containing (DECLAIM (SPEED 0))
-  does not.
-
 90: 
   a latent cross-compilation/bootstrapping bug: The cross-compilation
   host's CL:CHAR-CODE-LIMIT is used in target code in readtable.lisp
@@ -857,15 +852,55 @@ Error in function C::GET-LAMBDA-TO-COMPILE:
       (:LINUX :X86 :IEEE-FLOATING-POINT :SB-CONSTRAIN-FLOAT-TYPE :SB-TEST
        :SB-INTERPRETER :SB-DOC :UNIX ...) is not of type SYMBOL.
 
-94: 
-  As reported by Christophe Rhodes on sbcl-devel 2001-03-28, the
-  old declaration 
-   (declaim (ftype (function (list list symbol t) list) parse-deftransform))
-  above DEFUN PARSE-DEFTRANSFORM was incorrect. The bad declaration was
-  removed in sbcl-0.6.11.28, but the compiler problem remains: the compiler
-  should've complained about the mismatch between the declaration and the
-  definition, and didn't. (The compiler in cmucl-2.5.1 does detect the 
-  problem and complain.)
+94a: 
+  Inconsistencies between derived and declared VALUES return types for
+  DEFUN aren't checked very well. E.g. the logic which successfully
+  catches problems like
+    (declaim (ftype (function (fixnum) float) foo))
+    (defun foo (x)
+      (declare (type integer x))
+      (values x)) ; wrong return type, detected, gives warning, good!
+  fails to catch
+    (declaim (ftype (function (t) (values t t)) bar))
+    (defun bar (x)
+      (values x)) ; wrong number of return values, no warning, bad!
+  The cause of this is seems to be that (1) the internal function 
+  VALUES-TYPES-EQUAL-OR-INTERSECT used to make the check handles its
+  arguments symmetrically, and (2) when the type checking code was
+  written back when when SBCL's code was still CMU CL, the intent
+  was that this case
+    (declaim (ftype (function (t) t) bar))
+    (defun bar (x)
+      (values x x)) ; wrong number of return values; should give warning?
+  not be warned for, because a two-valued return value is considered
+  to be compatible with callers who expects a single value to be
+  returned. That intent is probably not appropriate for modern ANSI
+  Common Lisp, but fixing this might be complicated because of other
+  divergences between auld-style and new-style handling of
+  multiple-VALUES types. (Some issues related to this were discussed
+  on cmucl-imp at some length sometime in 2000.)
+
+95:
+  The facility for dumping a running Lisp image to disk gets confused
+  when run without the PURIFY option, and creates an unnecessarily large
+  core file (apparently representing memory usage up to the previous
+  high-water mark). Moreover, when the file is loaded, it confuses the
+  GC, so that thereafter memory usage can never be reduced below that
+  level.
+
+96:
+  The TRACE facility can't be used on some kinds of functions.
+  Basically, the breakpoint facility wasn incompletely implemented
+  in the X86 port of CMU CL, and we haven't fixed it in SBCL.
+
+97:
+  FRESH-LINE doesn't seem to work properly within pretty-printed
+  output. E.g. 
+    "~@<unhandled CONDITION (of type ~S): ~2I~_~A~:>~2%"
+  called on a CONDITION whose printer does
+    "~&~@<error in function ~S: ~3I~:_~?~:>"
+  gives two newlines between "unhandled CONDITION" and "error", when
+  (it at least seems as though) correct behavior would be to give one.
 
 
 KNOWN BUGS RELATED TO THE IR1 INTERPRETER