1.0.0.24:

	* Apply base+index addressing fix to x86-64's LISTIFY-REST-ARGS.
	* Make dynamic-extent allocation on x86 slightly smaller
	  (following x86-64's lead).

diff --git a/src/compiler/x86-64/call.lisp b/src/compiler/x86-64/call.lisp
index 4f25442..269b8c6 100644 (file)
--- a/src/compiler/x86-64/call.lisp
+++ b/src/compiler/x86-64/call.lisp
@@ -1296,7 +1296,7 @@
       ;; Check to see whether there are no args, and just return NIL if so.
       (inst mov result nil-value)
       (inst jecxz done)
-      (inst lea dst (make-ea :qword :index rcx :scale 2))
+      (inst lea dst (make-ea :qword :base rcx :index rcx))
       (maybe-pseudo-atomic stack-allocate-p
        (allocation dst dst node stack-allocate-p)
        (inst lea dst (make-ea :byte :base dst :disp list-pointer-lowtag))

diff --git a/src/compiler/x86/macros.lisp b/src/compiler/x86/macros.lisp
index c010cfd..f42bcc3 100644 (file)
--- a/src/compiler/x86/macros.lisp
+++ b/src/compiler/x86/macros.lisp
@@ -164,7 +164,7 @@
   ;; 32-bit lispobjs).  In that case, this AND instruction is
   ;; unneccessary and could be removed.  If not, explain why.  -- CSR,
   ;; 2004-03-30
-  (inst and esp-tn #.(ldb (byte 32 0) (lognot lowtag-mask)))
+  (inst and esp-tn (lognot lowtag-mask))
   (aver (not (location= alloc-tn esp-tn)))
   (inst mov alloc-tn esp-tn)
   (values))

diff --git a/version.lisp-expr b/version.lisp-expr
index f63e977..d51690c 100644 (file)
--- a/version.lisp-expr
+++ b/version.lisp-expr
@@ -17,4 +17,4 @@
 ;;; checkins which aren't released. (And occasionally for internal
 ;;; versions, especially for internal versions off the main CVS
 ;;; branch, it gets hairier, e.g. "0.pre7.14.flaky4.13".)
-"1.0.0.23"
+"1.0.0.24"