X-Git-Url: http://repo.macrolet.net/gitweb/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=src%2Fcode%2Fcross-condition.lisp;h=cd8580c7dd9deba8fcc1fad062f96f72650f171d;hb=92d8ab5b9274e73e50eb21feacbed396a9b24897;hp=a9a89ffb3119ee91fafec149c16112aac5b39b15;hpb=4b198312920a0aa77261413d5d6ff6de1131e164;p=sbcl.git

diff --git a/src/code/cross-condition.lisp b/src/code/cross-condition.lisp
index a9a89ff..cd8580c 100644
--- a/src/code/cross-condition.lisp
+++ b/src/code/cross-condition.lisp
@@ -16,3 +16,49 @@
 ;;; in the cross-compiler, this is a full warning.  In the target
 ;;; compiler, it will only be a style-warning.
 (define-condition format-too-many-args-warning (simple-warning) ())
+
+;;; 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 ~
+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.
+(deftype package-lock-violation () nil)
+(deftype package-locked-error () nil)
+(deftype symbol-package-locked-error () nil)