[Ecls-list] asdf/bundle and ECL prologue / epilogue

[Faré]

Regarding ASDF and ECL, it seemed to me that *load-system-operation*
had been designed
so I could/should do this in asdf/bundle:
 (unless (use-ecl-byte-compiler-p)
    (setf *load-system-operation* 'load-fasl-op))

Unhappily, when I did, I got 4 errors while testing. I found 1 bug in
ASDF, 2 bugs in test scripts that didn't expect load-fasl-op (good for
ECL to find them! all of them fixed), and what looks like one bug in
ECL.

If you uncomment the lines mentioned above in bundle.lisp,
modify this test so it uses load-fasl-op instead of load-op,
have it (trace c::builder load* perform-plan perform) if you want, and run it:
make t l=ecl t='test-xach-update-bug.script'

The .fasb is loaded, but fails to define the second-version package.
If you load it into another fresh image, it works.

Therefore, after adding two lines, I commented them out again.

Or is it per design that if you load a fasb, then another incompatible
version of a same-named, same location, fasb in the very same image,
the results are undefined? But it looks like it's working for a
regular fas, since the test works using load-op.

In any case, if some ECL maintainer has spare cycles, this deserves to
be investigated eventually.

I'm running ECL 13.5.1 (git:e7daee08e8cb7d4b4cea4bc27ce9c7839e236938)
on Linux amd64. It's the last version that doesn't bug out with
program-op because of the bug

If you tell me I should use load-fasl-op anyway, I will.

PS: Anton, if you have time, can you re-run tests after uncommenting
the mentioned lines in bundle.lisp? I'm interested in whether there
are regressions using ECL this way... it did error out on missing
dependencies in a few of ASDF's tests (including in asdf-encodings).
Otherwise, I think we have a release candidate with 3.1.0.92.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
There are two kinds of pacifists: those who try to disarm the criminals, and
those who try to disarm the victims.