X-Git-Url: http://repo.macrolet.net/gitweb/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=src%2Fcode%2Fcross-condition.lisp;h=cd8580c7dd9deba8fcc1fad062f96f72650f171d;hb=81a75e4657328daad0d63bdbf9555ef4d309c39d;hp=269241c15fa42d4f1d5bb896c3d8a328e9420506;hpb=fea8ea02847ddc0864546a02480fb3e97d6fa318;p=sbcl.git

diff --git a/src/code/cross-condition.lisp b/src/code/cross-condition.lisp
index 269241c..cd8580c 100644
--- a/src/code/cross-condition.lisp
+++ b/src/code/cross-condition.lisp
@@ -17,24 +17,45 @@
 ;;; compiler, it will only be a style-warning.
 (define-condition format-too-many-args-warning (simple-warning) ())
 
-(define-condition encapsulated-condition () ())
+;;; KLUDGE: OAOOM warning: see condition.lisp -- we want a full
+;;; definition in the cross-compiler as well, in order to have nice
+;;; error messages instead of complaints of undefined-function
+;;; ENCAPSULATED-CONDITION.
+(define-condition encapsulated-condition (condition)
+  ((condition :initarg :condition :reader encapsulated-condition)))
+
+;;; KLUDGE: another OAOOM problem, this time to allow conditions with
+;;; REFERENCE-CONDITION in their supercondition list on the host.
+;;; (This doesn't feel like the entirely right solution, it has to be
+;;; said.)  -- CSR, 2004-09-15
+(define-condition reference-condition ()
+  ((references :initarg :references :reader reference-condition-references)))
+
+;;; KLUDGE: yet another OAOOM.
+;;;
+;;; FIXME: This is clearly one OAOOM KLUDGE too many in a row. When tempted
+;;; to add another one invent DEF!CONDITION or whatever seems necessary,
+;;; and replace these.
+(define-condition type-warning (reference-condition simple-warning)
+  ()
+  (:default-initargs :references (list '(:sbcl :node "Handling of Types"))))
 
 (define-condition bug (simple-error)
   ()
   (:report
    (lambda (condition stream)
      (format stream
-	     "~@<  ~? ~:@_~?~:>"
-	     (simple-condition-format-control condition)
-	     (simple-condition-format-arguments condition)
-	     "~@<If you see this and are an SBCL ~
+             "~@<  ~? ~:@_~?~:>"
+             (simple-condition-format-control condition)
+             (simple-condition-format-arguments condition)
+             "~@<If you see this and are an SBCL ~
 developer, then it is probable that you have made a change to the ~
 system that has broken the ability for SBCL to compile, usually by ~
 removing an assumed invariant of the system, but sometimes by making ~
 an averrance that is violated (check your code!). If you are a user, ~
 please submit a bug report to the developers' mailing list, details of ~
 which can be found at <http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/>.~:@>"
-	     ()))))
+             ()))))
 
 ;;; These are should never be instantiated before the real definitions
 ;;; come in.