Re: [Sbcl-devel] [Sbcl-commits] master: Signal an error for (MAPCAR 'A-MACRO '())

[Douglas K. <do...@go...>]

> This sounds good but do you know why this shows up on the list of Likely
> suspicious calls?
>

Yes, because I'm the only one who knows how I defined the term "suspicious"
in that check!
And in fact I didn't introduce this "likely suspicious" call now, it's from
b29f6c2670c6e9f71c466004a55073f03df94037.

What the test is trying to do is discriminate between a few scenarios:
1. you compiled a full call to FOO and then defined a compiler macro.
In that case, even though the compiler macro could legally have declined to
produce a new form, it's worth a warning if was not defined because it's
probably not your intent to have not seen the macro definition.
2. inline functions - since there's no such thing as an inline function
that declines to provide an expansion, it almost *always* suspicious to
compile a full call; except if there was a (locally (notinline)).  But if
there is a known inline expansion, but it's proclaimed notinline, I think
you can get a false warning. Maybe?

Anyway the second check is basically flawed and I plan to remove it now
that I've enforced that you *can't* have any inlining failures in
self-build.