X-Git-Url: http://repo.macrolet.net/gitweb/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=tests%2Fcompiler.impure.lisp;h=9a2aed6a25681dcbf36e505df55cb106325c731a;hb=3a8bfcb01abe4d8eeb9ef1343d623dbbf57c19d9;hp=a43a80f6c2866402a7d9a8a944740fefd5c7dc40;hpb=2bdf5a3484eda55b0d4b9313aa6b3505b6d7cbd8;p=sbcl.git

diff --git a/tests/compiler.impure.lisp b/tests/compiler.impure.lisp
index a43a80f..9a2aed6 100644
--- a/tests/compiler.impure.lisp
+++ b/tests/compiler.impure.lisp
@@ -752,6 +752,17 @@ BUG 48c, not yet fixed:
   (declare (type (vector (unsigned-byte 8)) x))
   (setq *y* (the (unsigned-byte 8) (aref x 4))))
 
+;;; FUNCTION-LAMBDA-EXPRESSION should return something that's COMPILE
+;;; can understand.  Here's a simple test for that on a function
+;;; that's likely to return a hairier list than just a lambda:
+(macrolet ((def (fn) `(progn
+		       (declaim (inline ,fn))
+		       (defun ,fn (x) (1+ x)))))
+  (def bug228))
+(let ((x (function-lambda-expression #'bug228)))
+  (when x
+    (assert (= (funcall (compile nil x) 1) 2))))
+
 ;;;; tests not in the problem domain, but of the consistency of the
 ;;;; compiler machinery itself