From dougk at google.com Sat Mar 14 01:09:50 2020 From: dougk at google.com (Douglas Katzman) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:09:50 -0400 Subject: proper-list-length Message-ID: Hi, we have some continuous build tests that compile everything in safety 1 and safety 0. (Yeah, living on the edge, I know.) The latter fails the self-test for proper-list-length.2 If proper-list-length is called with an improper list of at least 1 cons, it signals an error. This is due to the explicit safety declaration in SAFE-ENDP. But if called on an atom, then memory corruption happens because SLOW is initialized sans type checks by (cons (car list) (cdr list)) What would be the intent in that case? To say to the user: "You're holding it wrong"? Thanks, Doug -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From philipp at marek.priv.at Wed Mar 25 10:00:27 2020 From: philipp at marek.priv.at (Philipp Marek) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 11:00:27 +0100 Subject: docstrings.lisp Message-ID: I noticed that our copy of docstrings.lisp has diverged from SBCL's over the years. Does anyone have a qualified opinion which is "better"? As SBCL is hardcoded in the Makefile anyway why not just remove our own copy and rely on SBCL's version?