Platform support: current status (126.96.36.199, linux)
rpgoldman at sift.net
Mon Aug 22 15:48:11 UTC 2016
On 8/22/16 Aug 22 -10:30 AM, Drew C wrote:
> 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 fails"?
My understanding is that cl-test-grid tests Quicklisp, and that
Quicklisp does not run the bleeding edge of ASDF. But I could be wrong.
For example, using the report URL you provided, I see in the cell for
(LOAD city-hash FAIL) needs newer ASDF,
ASDF/FIND-SYSTEM:LOAD-SYSTEM-DEFINITION-ERROR : Error while trying to
load definition for system swap-bytes from pathname
You need ASDF >= 3.1 to load this system correctly.
> For example, I notice that they used sbcl-1.0.58 in the last test .
> 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
>  https://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/ql/quicklisp-2016-06-28-diff.html
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Elias Pipping <pipping.elias at icloud.com
> <mailto:pipping.elias at icloud.com>> wrote:
> 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 188.8.131.52, 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
> 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
> 184.108.40.206; 220.127.116.11 was fine.
> (+++) sb-debug:print-backtrace requires 1.1.5 or later, bundles
> require 1.1.13 or later
More information about the asdf-devel