1 ;;;; converting symbols from SB-XC::FOO to COMMON-LISP::FOO when
2 ;;;; cross-compiling (so that we can maintain distinct SB!XC versions
3 ;;;; of fundamental COMMON-LISP things like PROCLAIM and CLASS and
4 ;;;; ARRAY-RANK-LIMIT, so that we don't trash the cross-compilation
5 ;;;; host when defining the cross-compiler, but the distinctions go
6 ;;;; away in the target system)
8 ;;;; This software is part of the SBCL system. See the README file for
11 ;;;; This software is derived from the CMU CL system, which was
12 ;;;; written at Carnegie Mellon University and released into the
13 ;;;; public domain. The software is in the public domain and is
14 ;;;; provided with absolutely no warranty. See the COPYING and CREDITS
15 ;;;; files for more information.
19 ;;; In the target system's compiler, uncrossing is just identity.
22 #!-sb-fluid
(declaim (inline uncross
))
23 (defun uncross (x) x
))
24 ;;; In the cross-compiler, uncrossing is slightly less trivial.
26 ;;; This condition is only a STYLE-WARNING because generally it isn't important
27 ;;; in practice to recurse through anything except CONSes anyway.
30 (define-condition uncross-rcr-failure
(style-warning)
31 ((form :initarg
:form
:reader uncross-rcr-failure-form
))
32 (:report
(lambda (c s
)
34 "UNCROSS couldn't recurse through ~S~%~
35 (which is OK as long as there are no SB-XC symbols ~
37 (uncross-rcr-failure-form c
)))))
40 ;;; When cross-compiling, EVAL-WHEN :COMPILE-TOPLEVEL code is executed
41 ;;; in the host Common Lisp, not the target. A certain amount of
42 ;;; dancing around is required in order for this to work more or less
43 ;;; correctly. (Fortunately, more or less correctly is good enough --
44 ;;; it only needs to work on the EVAL-WHEN expressions found in the
45 ;;; SBCL sources themselves, and we can exercise self-control to keep
46 ;;; them from including anything which too strongly resembles a
47 ;;; language lawyer's test case.)
49 ;;; In order to make the dancing happen, we need to make a distinction
50 ;;; between SB!XC and COMMON-LISP when we're executing a form at
51 ;;; compile time (i.e. within EVAL-WHEN :COMPILE-TOPLEVEL) but we need
52 ;;; to treat SB!XC as synonymous with COMMON-LISP otherwise. This
53 ;;; can't be done by making SB!XC a nickname of COMMON-LISP, because
54 ;;; the reader processes things before EVAL-WHEN, so by the time
55 ;;; EVAL-WHEN :COMPILE-TOPLEVEL saw a form, the distinction it needs
56 ;;; would be lost. Instead, we read forms preserving this distinction
57 ;;; (treating SB!XC as a separate package), and only when we're about
58 ;;; to process them (for any situation other than EVAL-WHEN
59 ;;; (:COMPILE-TOPLEVEL)) do we call UNCROSS on them to obliterate the
62 (let ((;; KLUDGE: We don't currently try to handle circular program
63 ;; structure, but we do at least detect it and complain about
65 inside?
(make-hash-table)))
67 (labels ((uncross-symbol (symbol)
68 (let ((old-symbol-package (symbol-package symbol
)))
69 (if (and old-symbol-package
70 (string= (package-name old-symbol-package
) "SB-XC"))
71 (values (intern (symbol-name symbol
) "COMMON-LISP"))
73 (rcr (form) ; recursive part
75 (uncross-symbol form
))
81 ;; If we reach here, FORM is something with
82 ;; internal structure which could include
83 ;; symbols in the SB-XC package.
84 (when (gethash form inside?
)
85 (let ((*print-circle
* t
))
86 ;; This code could probably be generalized
87 ;; to work on circular structure, but it
88 ;; seems easier just to avoid putting any
89 ;; circular structure into the bootstrap
91 (error "circular structure in ~S" form
)))
92 (setf (gethash form inside?
) t
)
95 (cons (rcr-cons form
))
97 ;; KLUDGE: There are other types
98 ;; (especially (ARRAY T) and
99 ;; STRUCTURE-OBJECT, but also HASH-TABLE
100 ;; and perhaps others) which could hold
101 ;; symbols. In principle we should handle
102 ;; those types as well. Failing that, we
103 ;; could give warnings for them. However,
104 ;; the current system works for
105 ;; bootstrapping in practice (because we
106 ;; don't use those constructs that way)
107 ;; and the warnings more annoying than
108 ;; useful, so I simply turned the
109 ;; warnings off. -- WHN 20001105
110 #+nil
(warn 'uncross-rcr-failure
:form form
)
112 (remhash form inside?
)))))
114 (declare (type cons form
))
115 (let* ((car (car form
))
119 (if (and (eq rcr-car car
) (eq rcr-cdr cdr
))
121 (cons rcr-car rcr-cdr
)))))