18:50:16nyefMaybe the solution is to document how safepoints work, then make the decision on throwing out the current runtime implementation or not?
18:50:58stassats`nyef: that is the problem, i don't know how they work currently
18:52:13scymtym_stassats`: tests finished: https://ci.cor-lab.org/job/sbcl-master-windows/label=Windows_7_64bit/1433/console (this is not the most recent commit)
18:54:49|3b|ACTION wonders if "skipped" tests should be split into "not applicable" and "too broken to even try to see if it works"
18:55:52|3b|ACTION similarly thinks "expected failure" might not suggest quite the right thing as far as implementation quality... "known failure" or something might be closer
18:57:48stassats`one test has :fails-on :skipped-on and :broken-on at once
18:58:16|3b|ACTION is thinking about how windows build sounds a lot better if it can reliably finish its test suite with no unexpected failure/unhandled error, even if the actual implementation hasn't changed
19:00:22stassats`for most people, interrupt-thread is not critical
19:01:10|3b|yeah, hasn't gotten any worse either, so still quite useable :)