Platform support: current status (, linux)

Drew C me at
Mon Aug 22 15:30:10 UTC 2016


How does this differ from the "Monthly-or-so" tests that Quicklisp does
with cl-test-grid? Is there anything beyond `make test-lisp`, or is this a
simple "try to build the ASDF master branch on Linux/x64 and report if it

For example, I notice that they used sbcl-1.0.58 in the last test[1] . What
issues did you have with those earlier versions that were'fixed' in 1.1.13?
Is there a report of your testing available that I could look at beyond a
quick email?

Beyond that, looks good!


Drew Crampsie


On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Elias Pipping <pipping.elias at>

> Dear list,
> I've been meaning to find out what lisp compilers/interpreters are
> effectively supported
> by current ASDF, to the point where they pass `make test-lisp` without a
> single (potentially
> harmless error), such as those stemming e.g. from unexpected warnings.
> I’ve now gotten around to a bit of testing. For future reference, on a
> recent Linux, with
> ASDF, the answer is as follows:
> ABCL: 1.2.0 (2013-06-01) or later looks good(*)
> Allegro CL: 10.0 Express Edition looks good(**)
> CCL: 1.10 (2014-09-12) or later looks good(***)
> CLISP: 2.49 (2010-07-07) looks good; hg checkout segfaults in
> asdf-pathname-test.script
> CMUCL: 20e (2013-09-28) or later looks good(+)
> ECL: 16.0.0 (2015-08-28) or later looks good
> LispWorks: HobbyistDV/Professional/Enterprise edition of 7.0 (2015-05-05)
> would probably look good(++1)
> LispWorks: Professional edition of 6.1 (and presumably others) currently
> emit an unexpected warning(++2)
> MKCL: 1.1.9 hangs in test-try-refinding.script; git checkout looks good
> SBCL: 1.1.13 (2013-10-31) or later looks good(+++)
> (*) sys::concatenate-fasls requires 1.2.0 or later
> (**) 9.0 can no longer be downloaded so that I could not test with earlier
> versions
> (***) 1.9 and earlier are broken on recent versions of linux, see
> (+) 20c/20d has known CLOS issues.
> (++1) I do not have access to them, so I cannot say for sure. The Hobbyist
> and Personal edition
> lack application delivery and image saving functionality, respectively.
> The tests put those features
> to the test and currently fail if they’re unavailable.
> (++2) causing `make test-lisp` to fail; This started with ASDF;
> was fine.
> (+++) sb-debug:print-backtrace requires 1.1.5 or later, bundles require
> 1.1.13 or later
> Elias
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the asdf-devel mailing list