From: William H. N. <wil...@ai...> - 2002-01-30 14:17:27
|
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 08:47:18AM +0300, Alexey Dejneka wrote: > Another way to see it is to set SB-C::*CHECK-CONSISTENCY* to T. As far as I could tell, the *CHECK-CONSISTENCY* code was sadly out-of-date in the original cmucl-ca.-2.4.8 code that I forked from, and I never used it after a few failed attempts. Now I'm sure it's more out of date. I'd love to get it back in shape, and/or move the not-too-expensive assertions into ordinary (not conditional on *CHECK-CONSISTENCY*) compiler code. But I've spent hardly any time experimenting with it, and mostly just assumed that getting the *CHECK-CONSISTENCY* stuff to run cleanly would be a major project. Have you been having some success in getting it to run in general? Maybe it might not be too difficult to make it run always? > > But the word DESIRABLE embarrasses me. Should this function link if > > it is "wanted" (in this case the AVER is right and there is a bug > > upstream) or "wanted and possible"? > > There is only one client of TARGET-IF-DESIRABLE now and it was > broken. So I think the first variant is right. I've fixed the bug and > added some checks and cross-references. OK, thank you. Pending things for me to deal with are now, IIRC, 1. this patch 2. your new test case for "The value NIL is not of type SB-C:TN", which should at least be logged in a BUGS 3. your new-in-0.7.0 compiler bug report, which I hope I might be able to fix I'm currently moving to a new apartment, so I might be more scatterbrained and unpredictable than usual, but I expect I'll deal with the first two in the next day or two, and I still hope to put some time into the third too. -- William Harold Newman <wil...@ai...> "Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" -- Ozymandias, King of Kings PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C |