CMU CL: #+cmu vs. #+cmucl
rpgoldman at sift.net
Sat Aug 20 21:30:14 UTC 2016
On 8/20/16 Aug 20 -11:55 AM, Elias Pipping wrote:
> So to summary what I’d like to ask:
> - Is it known that tests fail on cmucl <20e?
TL;DR: I'm afraid not. I am only testing on 20f right now.
I don't have a server farm (nor the time to manage one) and the most I
can manage is to run tests on a reasonably up-to-date set of lisp
In practice, this generally means latest binaries available on most
platforms, although I usually test on a relatively up-to-date copy of
SBCL from git, and I have been testing on ECL and MKCL from source.
I am not competent to build lisp implementations on Windows, so for that
platform I am strictly limited to what I can download and run.
> - What versions of cmucl is ASDF meant to support?
If Faré reports that the CMUCL maintainer prefers :cmucl feature, then I
propose we rule out anything that doesn't have it. That would mean 20c
and forward. We know that 20c and 20d have CLOS issues that we cannot
work around, so I would eliminate them, as well.
That would limit us to 20e and forward.
If there's a bug fix that would make 20c and 20d support better without
too much fuss, then I would be happy to merge it. But I believe we
convinced ourselves that the CLOS issues could not be overcome.
> - Should I turn checks for the :cmucl feature into ones for :cmu?
Sounds like "no," and we should replace old :CMU checks with :CMUCL.
Follow-on question: should we make ASDF issue a warning if it starts up
on older versions of CMUCL to inform the user that ASDF operations on
this implementation will be imperfect?
More information about the asdf-devel