[asdf-devel] ASDF 1.501

[Robert Goldman]

On 1/27/10 Jan 27 -10:09 AM, Faré wrote:
> Just telling that it failed isn't very useful, especially when others
> can't reproduce (painful with old SBCL, very expensive with ACL).
> 
> Can you attach a full log of the failures? Does ACL work better with
> old version of the test suite? I remember that a lot of those tests
> were failing on clisp at least.

Understood --- I will try to gather some information and put this on
launchpad.

I will see about getting a less moldy copy of SBCL to test on.  So these
tests all pass for you?  If this is a 1.0.28 peculiarity, I'm inclined
to ignore it.

Query:  how does one attach a full log of the failures?  These shell
scripts are not particularly forthcoming about belching up a backtrace
or anything like that.  They just print out a list of failing tests and
exit.  I could show you the full trace of what is printed when ACL 8.1
fails, and although it's a little longer than what I emailed, nothing
additional looks in any way useful.

I will root around inside the tests.  It seems to me that for debugging
test failures, we should provide a mode where the QUIT-ON-ERROR function
does not, in fact, quit on error.

I note, BTW, that there's no support in run-tests.sh for 64-bit CCL,
lispworks, or ABCL.  OK, new launchpad ticket coming...

> 
> PS: I see you were in Cambridge MA recently. Next time you are, contact me!

Will do.  I tried tweeting (I don't know a protocol for "tweeting" onto
IRC), but that seems... suboptimal....

Next time I want to synchronize with the user group, too!


> 
> [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
> Death is only a milestone - albeit one that is dropped on you
> from a very great height
>         — Terry Pratchett.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010/1/27 Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info>:
>> On 1/27/10 Jan 27 -12:50 AM, Faré wrote:
>>> I've just released ASDF 1.501 in the official repository, now with all
>>> the source registry configuration that I previously discussed. It's
>>> currently documented in its own file README.source-registry, rather
>>> than in the general manual asdf.texinfo, as it should be. Patch
>>> welcome.
>>>
>>> Note that I bumped the version from 1.375 to 1.500 then 1.501. This to
>>> indicate that we're not using CVS anymore, that I've reached a
>>> milestone towards my goal of an "ASDF 2" that I could push as a
>>> replacement to ASDF. It passes the tests with SBCL. But the tests
>>> could be extended to do more.
>>>
>>> Next, comes a similar revamp of ASDF-BINARY-LOCATIONS configuration.
>>> Or maybe a wholesale replacement of ABL with something that's simpler
>>> and configured in a way similar to source-registry? What do YOU think?
>>
>> I have an old copy of SBCL, 1.0.28, which I keep around (we pinned
>> ourselves to that revision for a project I was working on), and I tried
>> to run the test suite on this version of SBCL, 64-bit Mac.
>>
>> The test suite failed, and here are the last several lines of the output:
>>
>> ; compilation unit finished
>> ;   caught 2 STYLE-WARNING conditions
>> ;   printed 1 note
>>
>>
>> ; /Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/asdf.fasl written
>> ; compilation finished in 0:00:07.450
>> Testuite failed: ASDF compiled with warningsbash-3.2$
>>
>>
>> I thought that this might be a spurious failure having to do with being
>> too stringent about what constitutes an ASDF compilation failure, so I
>> tried to run the test suite again (figuring a compiled version of
>> asdf.lisp would now be available), but it failed identically.
>>
>> Is this expected?  Should I ticket this?
>>
>> I will report on ACL tests shortly.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robert
>>