rpgoldman at sift.net
Tue Sep 13 01:47:13 UTC 2016
On 9/12/16 Sep 12 -6:13 PM, Elias Pipping wrote:
>> On 12 Sep 2016, at 23:33, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.net> wrote:
>> I ran the tests again on all three platforms.
> I’ve run tests on Linux again, now, too.
Are you running on head of master from common-lisp.net?
>> Unexpected test success on ecl-bytecodes (ECL 16.1.2) in this block:
>> ;; forced, it should be later
>> (DBG "Check that force reloading loads again")
>> (setf test-package::*file3* :reset)
>> (load-system 'test-asdf/force :force :all)
>> (assert-compare (>= (get-file-stamp file1) file1-date))
>> (assert-equal test-package::*file3* t)
>> I do *not* see this on ECL non-bytecodes. The tests here fail as before.
> I’ve hit the following regressions, some of which overlap with what you see:
> - ECL 16.1.2 and newer fail test3.script in regular mode
> - ECL 16.1.2 and newer fail test-force.script in ecl_bytescodes mode(+)
I believe that this is a non-failure -- previously this was tagged as an
expected failure. Looks like Faré has removed that expected failure.
Now ecl_bytecodes reports success on both Mac and Linux. This is 16.1.2.
I don't see a failure in test3.script, on either Mac or Linux.
> - SBCL 1.1.13 now fails plenty of tests (11 to be precise). SBCL 1.3.9 and later are fine(++)
The last time I checked SBCL 1.3.9 (really a candidate for release), it
failed because of some pathname-printing code. Passes for me now on Mac
> - MKCL-git(*) now fails test-make-build.script and test-program.script(**)
mkcl from git just now doesn't fail any tests for me.
I'd be interested to see what's going wrong in these failures that I
> (+) I don’t typically run such tests. It seems I should.
> (++) I did not test anything between 1.1.13 and 1.3.9
> (*) needs to be very recent
> (**) that’s what https://github.com/jcbeaudoin/MKCL/issues/9 is about
More information about the asdf-devel