sprof output not ideal for unnamed LAMBDAs

[David Lichteblau]

In an effort to distinguish different unnamed LAMBDAs, sprof currently reports them using the code component's start PC. That makes output technically correct, but not very informative.

Untested patch against ~1.0.47.30 attached just for the record.

[Nikodemus Siivola (nikodemus)]

An alternative take.

CL-USER> (defun bar (x) (lambda () (incf x)))
BAR

CL-USER> (bar 12)
#<CLOSURE (LAMBDA () :IN BAR) {10038C3869}>

Similarly for FLET and LABELS.

[Nikodemus Siivola (nikodemus)]

commit 2050b7c3644ab235aaf1959795bb33e89bd571a3
Author: Nikodemus Siivola <email address hidden>
Date: Tue Aug 9 19:05:42 2011 +0300

    better inner and anonymous function names

     * New concept: "name context". It is either name of the outermost non-NIL
       block in the current lexenv (FIXME: would be better to have the outermost
       global function name instead) or the source-namestring of the file in which
       the function resides.

     * Name anonymous functions as

        (LAMBDA <lambda-list> :IN <context>)

     * Name FLET and LABELS functions as

        (FLET <name> :IN <context>)

       and

        (LABELS <name> :IN <context>)

       Adjust tests to suit.

     * Remove BLOCK-GENSYM as this fulfills the same goals, and together
       they make backtraces overly noisy.