(:method ((x integer)) (cons 'integer nil)))
=> SB-KERNEL::CONTROL-STACK-EXHAUSTED
+367: TYPE-ERROR at compile time, undetected TYPE-ERROR at runtime
+ This test program
+ (declaim (optimize (safety 3) (debug 2) (speed 2) (space 1)))
+ (defstruct e367)
+ (defstruct i367)
+ (defstruct g367
+ (i367s (make-array 0 :fill-pointer t) :type (or (vector i367) null)))
+ (defstruct s367
+ (g367 (error "missing :G367") :type g367 :read-only t))
+ ;;; In sbcl-0.8.18, commenting out this (DECLAIM (FTYPE ... R367))
+ ;;; gives an internal error at compile time:
+ ;;; The value #<SB-KERNEL:NAMED-TYPE NIL> is not of
+ ;;; type SB-KERNEL:VALUES-TYPE.
+ (declaim (ftype (function ((vector i367) e367) (or s367 null)) r367))
+ (declaim (ftype (function ((vector e367)) (values)) h367))
+ (defun frob (v w)
+ (let ((x (g367-i367s (make-g367))))
+ (let* ((y (or (r367 x w)
+ (h367 x)))
+ (z (s367-g367 y)))
+ (format t "~&Y=~S Z=~S~%" y z)
+ (g367-i367s z))))
+ (defun r367 (x y) (declare (ignore x y)) nil)
+ (defun h367 (x) (declare (ignore x)) (values))
+ ;;; In sbcl-0.8.18, executing this form causes an low-level error
+ ;;; segmentation violation at #X9B0E1F4
+ ;;; (instead of the TYPE-ERROR that one might like).
+ (frob 0 (make-e367))
+ can be made to cause two different problems, as noted in the comments:
+ bug 367a: Compile and load the file. No TYPE-ERROR is signalled at
+ run time (in the (S367-G367 Y) form of FROB, when Y is NIL
+ instead of an instance of S367). Instead (on x86/Linux at least)
+ we end up with a segfault.
+ bug 367b: Comment out the (DECLAIM (FTYPE ... R367)), and compile
+ the file. The compiler fails with TYPE-ERROR at compile time.