Oddities in ECL tests on Linux

Marius Gerbershagen marius.gerbershagen at gmail.com
Fri Aug 31 18:43:32 UTC 2018

Yes, the Ubuntu package definitely should be updated to version 16.1.3
which fixes the issue. But the ECL developers can't run to the
maintainer of the ECL package of every linux distribution and ask them
to upgrade their package each time they make a new release. And even if
they could, the package maintainers probably wouldn't do it, since some
other package might depend on an older ECL version.

For the moment, the best solution I can offer you for your problem is a
dirty hack to prevent older ECL versions from entering the interactive REPL:

diff --git a/test/script-support.lisp b/test/script-support.lisp
index 86b6c1f2..7f72488a 100644
--- a/test/script-support.lisp
+++ b/test/script-support.lisp
@@ -83,6 +83,14 @@ Some constraints:
   (defun ensure-directories-exist (path)
     #+genera (fs:create-directories-recursively (pathname path))))

+;; Dirty hack to prevent buggy ECL versions from landing in the top
level prompt when they shouldn't
+#+ecl (when (and (string<= (lisp-implementation-version) "16.1.2")
+                 (not *debug-asdf*))
+        (setq si:*tpl-prompt-hook*
+              #'(lambda ()
+                  (format *error-output* "ECL unexpectedly landed in
the top level prompt. Script aborted.~%")
+                  (exit-lisp 1))))
 ;;; Survival utilities
 (defun asym (name &optional package errorp)
   (let* ((pname (or package :asdf))

Of course since this is only a workaround to prevent the tests from
stopping, the tests in which ECL would stop without the workaround will
fail on ECL versions <= 16.1.2.

Am 31.08.2018 um 17:54 schrieb Robert Goldman:
> On 31 Aug 2018, at 10:35, Marius Gerbershagen wrote:
>     This is most likely a bug in ECL. I recommend trying out a newer version
>     of ecl (16.1.3 or the current develop branch from the git repository).
> I see your point, but have two comments:
>  1.
>     If this really /is/ an ECL bug, then shouldn't the Ubuntu package be
>     updated and fixed? ASDF is supposed to work on the ECL that users
>     will have, not only on the one that developers have.
>  2.
>     I don't see a way to get a new ECL except by pulling from Gitlab and
>     building. I do not have the time to run around building all
>     available lisp implementations from source (and, again, ASDF should
>     work on the versions of the implementations that users actually
>     have, which means the ones provided by the packaging systems on the
>     platforms). I build only SBCL, because that's an implementation I
>     build anyway, for my work needs. Faré had the energy to play with
>     all the different implementations in a substantial way, but I do not.
> So if the released version of an implementation is broken, I will simply
> regard that implementation as broken. If the /released version/ of an
> implementation is broken for long enough (I'm looking at you, clisp), it
> will become unsupported by ASDF. Unsupported means "patches will be
> accepted, but I will no longer run the tests, and test failure on an
> unsupported implementation will not be a reason to hold up an ASDF release."
> Note that at the moment /all/ implementations are essentially
> unsupported on Windows, since I have lost my Windows VM, and even if I
> got it back, I would have no way to develop on Windows. If you are a
> Windows user and this bothers you, I would be happy to support you in
> setting up a test environment, and even more happy to help you learn to
> patch ASDF. But even someone who doesn't want to patch ASDF, but who
> would be willing to run the test suite (or help figure out how it could
> be run through, e.g., Travis), would be a great help.
>     Am 30.08.2018 um 21:51 schrieb Robert Goldman:
>         I'm experimenting with your changes now but, for some reason that I
>         don't understand, when I run the tests as |make l=ecl|
>         interactively on
>         Ubuntu (using the Ubuntu ECL package |16.1.2-3|), signals are
>         throwing
>         me into the interactive debugger, instead of being caught. I have no
>         idea why this started happening, because I used to be able to
>         run ECL
>         successfully, and I don't believe I have changed the package
>         (although
>         Ubuntu might have upgraded it).
>         Actually /usr/bin/ecl is crashing with SIGABRT when running
>         programs,
>         apparently, on my Ubuntu box. (|SIGABRT in si_run_program()|).
>         I'll try
>         uninstalling and reinstalling ECL in the hopes that fixes this, but
>         unless I get some help, I will not be able to continue testing
>         ASDF on
>         ECL on Linux.
>         On 30 Aug 2018, at 13:22, Marius Gerbershagen wrote:
>         No, I don't think so. The sockets module has been part of ECL since
>         version 0.9f from 2005. Please note, that this test can fail
>         anyway if
>         ECL is built without support for the respective module (be it :rt or
>         :sockets). The change only prevents it from failing on a default
>         build
>         configuration.
>         Am 30.08.2018 um 19:53 schrieb Robert Goldman:
>         Thank you very much for these, Marius. I will look into fixing them
>         directly. One question - do I need to check for ECL version
>         number when
>         requiring sockets in the test? I.e., to I need to test with |:rt| in
>         older versions and |:sockets| in newer? Or will |:sockets| work
>         in older
>         versions of ECL, as well?
>         Best,
>         R
>         On 30 Aug 2018, at 12:46, Marius Gerbershagen wrote:
>         Harmless in the sense that ECL doesn't crash or throw me in the
>         interactive debugger. Besides, the test failures seem to be easily
>         fixed. The test-require.script test fails because it tries to
>         require
>         the :rt module which is deprecated on the develop branch and no
>         longer
>         build by default. A simple fix is to use the :sockets module
>         instead:
>         diff --git a/test/test-require.script b/test/test-require.script
>         index e5f70857..1ef84e8c 100644
>         --- a/test/test-require.script
>         +++ b/test/test-require.script
>         @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@
>         #+allegro :sax
>         #+clisp (first (remove "asdf" *dynmod-list* :test 'equal))
>         #+(or clozure cmucl) :defsystem
>         - #+ecl :rt ;; loads faster than :ecl-quicklisp
>         + #+ecl :sockets
>         #+lispworks "comm"
>         #+mkcl :walker
>         #+sbcl :sb-md5
>         The test-program.script test seems to fail to include uiop
>         because of an
>         error in the linkable-system function. Tracing it shows that the
>         function returns nil for the uiop system object,
>         1> (ASDF/BUNDLE::LINKABLE-SYSTEM #<system "uiop">)
>         which seems to be caused by a missing call to coerce-name:
>         diff --git a/bundle.lisp b/bundle.lisp
>         index 2ff56f93..42034c9f 100644
>         --- a/bundle.lisp
>         +++ b/bundle.lisp
>         @@ -529,7 +529,7 @@ which is probably not what you want; you
>         probably
>         need to tweak your output tran
>         ;; If an ASDF upgrade is available from source, but not a UIOP
>         upgrade to that,
>         ;; then use the asdf/driver system instead of
>         ;; the UIOP that was disabled by check-not-old-asdf-system.
>         - (if-let (s (and (equal x "uiop") (output-files 'lib-op "asdf")
>         (find-system "asdf/driver")))
>         + (if-let (s (and (equal (coerce-name x) "uiop") (output-files
>         'lib-op "asdf") (find-system "asdf/driver")))
>         (and (output-files 'lib-op s) s))
>         ;; If there was no source upgrade, look for modules provided by
>         the implementation.
>         (if-let (p (system-module-pathname (coerce-name x)))
>         Am 29.08.2018 um 01:22 schrieb Faré:
>         I can't reproduce this, for me the tests run fine without
>         being thrown
>         in the debugger. I only get two harmlessly looking test failures
>         (test-program.script and test-require.script).
>         No test failure is harmless. The test-program.script failure is what
>         Robert saw, that I can reproduce. I didn't reproduce a failure with
>         test-require. I had more problems with ECL from the develop branch,
>         but maybe it was a bad idea to use the develop branch.
>         —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics•
>         http://fare.tunes.org
>         There are two kinds of people, those who do the work
>         and those who take the credit. Try to be in the first group;
>         there is less competition there
>         — Indira Gandhi.

More information about the ecl-devel mailing list