Re: [Bug 2136852] [NEW] SB-VM::MOVE-WORD-ARG is not the name of a defined VOP.
Stas Boukarev <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.steel-bank.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAF63=13RK9kEmTP7tJ_zxVnoBjiPin==9DoC6HtpDf2uxk7vqA@mail.gmail.com> |
VOP inheritance is removed outside of sb-devel. I know what this means and nobody would understand #<TN t1 :NORMAL ANY-REG FIXNUM> is not valid as the first argument to VOP: CAR-EQ-IF-LISTP Primitive type: FIXNUM SC restrictions: (DESCRIPTOR-REG) The primitive type disallows these loadable SCs: (DESCRIPTOR-REG) without also running sb-devel, so I don't bother with it. On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 2:49 PM Christophe Rhodes via Sbcl-devel <[email protected]> wrote: > > There have been a number of recent reports like this one recently, where > the compiler fails with: > > "Paul F. Dietz" <[email protected]> writes: > > > SB-VM::MOVE-WORD-ARG is not the name of a defined VOP. > > [Condition of type SIMPLE-ERROR] > > > > Backtrace: > > 0: (SB-C::VOP-PARSE-OR-LOSE SB-VM::MOVE-WORD-ARG) > > 1: (SB-C::GET-OPERAND-INFO #<SB-C:TN-REF :TN #<SB-C:TN t1 :NORMAL> :WRITE-P NIL :VOP SB-VM::MOVE-WORD-ARG>) > > 2: (SB-C::BAD-COERCE-ERROR #<SB-C:TN-REF :TN #<SB-C:TN t1 :NORMAL> :WRITE-P NIL :VOP SB-VM::MOVE-WORD-ARG>) > > 3: (SB-C::EMIT-COERCE-VOP #<SB-C:TN-REF :TN #<SB-C:TN t1 :NORMAL> :WRITE-P NIL :VOP SB-VM::MOVE-WORD-ARG> #<SB-C:TN t2 :ALIAS to X!3> #(NIL NIL T NIL NIL NIL ...) #<SB-C::VOP :INFO SB-C:ALLOCATE-FRAME :A.. > > [...] > > Thank you for fixing the compiler bugs that this reveals! However, > there's a second problem, perhaps cosmetic, but I think we should look > at it. What this is *meant* to do is provide a nice human-readable > internal compiler error about why MOVE-WORD-ARG (or other vops, like > CAR-EQ-IF-LISTP) was not usable in this situation -- some kind of > mismatch between SCs, not being able to find MOVE vops to move between > them. Instead, we're getting a note that we can't find the > MOVE-WORD-ARG vop by name. Is this because we have started shaking out > more than we used to? Judging by versions of SBCL I have lying around, > this change is between 1 and 2 years old, so it's clearly not critical, > but if this is the new normal we should probably change BAD-COERCE-ERROR > not to do things that will always fail. > > Christophe > > > _______________________________________________ > Sbcl-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-devel _______________________________________________ Sbcl-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-devel