Unexpected undefined function error with sb-rotate-byte, inline, let

[Lutz Euler]

When entering the following sequence of expressions at the REPL the last one signals an error. I expected it not to, but instead to return 0.
This is SBCL 1.2.8.71-894fc3c, x86-64, linux, built with default options.

(require 'sb-rotate-byte)

(declaim (inline f))

(defun f (x)
  (declare (type (unsigned-byte 64) x))
  (setf x (sb-rotate-byte:rotate-byte 14 (byte 64 0) x))
  (setf x (sb-rotate-byte:rotate-byte 33 (byte 64 0) x)))

(let () (f 0))

; in: LET ()
; (F 0)
; --> BLOCK SETF SETQ THE SB-ROTATE-BYTE:ROTATE-BYTE
; --> SB-ROTATE-BYTE::%ROTATE-BYTE
; ==>
; (SB-ROTATE-BYTE::%UNSIGNED-64-ROTATE-BYTE COUNT INTEGER)
;
; caught STYLE-WARNING:
; Lisp error during constant folding:
; The function SB-ROTATE-BYTE::%UNSIGNED-64-ROTATE-BYTE is undefined.
;
; compilation unit finished
; caught 1 STYLE-WARNING condition

debugger invoked on a UNDEFINED-FUNCTION in thread
#<THREAD "main thread" RUNNING {1002D7E9E3}>:
  The function SB-ROTATE-BYTE::%UNSIGNED-64-ROTATE-BYTE is undefined.

Type HELP for debugger help, or (SB-EXT:EXIT) to exit from SBCL.

restarts (invokable by number or by possibly-abbreviated name):
  0: [ABORT] Exit debugger, returning to top level.

("undefined function")
0] backtrace

Backtrace for: #<SB-THREAD:THREAD "main thread" RUNNING {1002D7E9E3}>
0: ("undefined function")
1: ((LAMBDA ()))
2: (SB-INT:SIMPLE-EVAL-IN-LEXENV (LET NIL (F 0)) #<NULL-LEXENV>)
3: (EVAL (LET NIL (F 0)))
4: (INTERACTIVE-EVAL (LET NIL (F 0)) :EVAL NIL)
5: (SB-IMPL::REPL-FUN NIL)
6: ((LAMBDA NIL :IN SB-IMPL::TOPLEVEL-REPL))
7: (SB-IMPL::%WITH-REBOUND-IO-SYNTAX #<CLOSURE (LAMBDA NIL :IN SB-IMPL::TOPLEVEL-REPL) {10044FB5DB}>)
8: (SB-IMPL::TOPLEVEL-REPL NIL)
9: (SB-IMPL::TOPLEVEL-INIT)
10: ((FLET #:WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS-BODY-85 :IN SAVE-LISP-AND-DIE))
11: ((LABELS SB-IMPL::RESTART-LISP :IN SAVE-LISP-AND-DIE))

0]

Regards,

Lutz

[Lutz Euler (lutz-euler)]

I have bisected this to:

295fdbaa30b57128da30e1e5fb0c653dd20f46d1 is the first bad commit
commit 295fdbaa30b57128da30e1e5fb0c653dd20f46d1
Author: Nikodemus Siivola <email address hidden>
Date: Thu Dec 1 21:05:43 2011 +0200

    don't simplify (LET () ..) => (LOCALLY ...) in the simple evalutor

      If LET is at toplevel its subforms are not.

      If LOCALLY is at toplevel its subforms are also at toplevel.

That is SBCL 1.0.54.20.