Re: Another spurious compilation diagnostic?

This might help:

The problem occurs when the (list-length foobar) expression appears as  
the right hand side of a variable binding in a let* list.

A perhaps related spurious diagnostic also appears in the same let*  
context (but in different lets):

;   (WHEN INLINE-FLAG
;     (FETCH-DIR PAS-KING-SQ FR-SQ))
; --> COND IF
; ==>
;   (COND)
; Warning: This is not a (VALUES &OPTIONAL (MOD 536870911) &REST T):
;   NIL
; ; [Last message occurs 2 times]

The above COND IF NIL stuff must be from a cmucl macro expansion as  
it's not in the user source.

I note that the resulting compiled object code for all of the spurious  
warning cases runs fine as does the interpreted code version.  Same  
for the clisp and gcl processors.

== Steven


On Sep 22, 2008, at 7:58 PM, Raymond Toy wrote:

> Steven Edwards wrote:
>> Greetings again, list readers:
>>
>> It seems that every time I compile something like:
>>
>>  (list-length some-random-list)
>>
>> I get a compiler warning:
>>
>> ;   (LIST-LENGTH SOME-RANDOM-LIST)
>> ; --> BLOCK DO BLOCK LET TAGBODY WHEN COND IF PROGN RETURN
>> ; ==>
>> ;   (RETURN-FROM NIL NIL)
>> ; Warning: This is not a (VALUES &OPTIONAL REAL &REST T):
>> ;   NIL
>> ; ; [Last message occurs 2 times]
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
> I can't reproduce this.  What version of cmucl?  Can you provide a
> complete example that shows this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ray