On 1/27/10 Jan 27 -10:09 AM, Faré wrote: > Just telling that it failed isn't very useful, especially when others > can't reproduce (painful with old SBCL, very expensive with ACL). > > Can you attach a full log of the failures? Does ACL work better with > old version of the test suite? I remember that a lot of those tests > were failing on clisp at least.
Understood --- I will try to gather some information and put this on launchpad. I will see about getting a less moldy copy of SBCL to test on. So these tests all pass for you? If this is a 1.0.28 peculiarity, I'm inclined to ignore it. Query: how does one attach a full log of the failures? These shell scripts are not particularly forthcoming about belching up a backtrace or anything like that. They just print out a list of failing tests and exit. I could show you the full trace of what is printed when ACL 8.1 fails, and although it's a little longer than what I emailed, nothing additional looks in any way useful. I will root around inside the tests. It seems to me that for debugging test failures, we should provide a mode where the QUIT-ON-ERROR function does not, in fact, quit on error. I note, BTW, that there's no support in run-tests.sh for 64-bit CCL, lispworks, or ABCL. OK, new launchpad ticket coming... > > PS: I see you were in Cambridge MA recently. Next time you are, contact me! Will do. I tried tweeting (I don't know a protocol for "tweeting" onto IRC), but that seems... suboptimal.... Next time I want to synchronize with the user group, too! > > [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] > Death is only a milestone - albeit one that is dropped on you > from a very great height > — Terry Pratchett. > > > > > 2010/1/27 Robert Goldman <[email protected]>: >> On 1/27/10 Jan 27 -12:50 AM, Faré wrote: >>> I've just released ASDF 1.501 in the official repository, now with all >>> the source registry configuration that I previously discussed. It's >>> currently documented in its own file README.source-registry, rather >>> than in the general manual asdf.texinfo, as it should be. Patch >>> welcome. >>> >>> Note that I bumped the version from 1.375 to 1.500 then 1.501. This to >>> indicate that we're not using CVS anymore, that I've reached a >>> milestone towards my goal of an "ASDF 2" that I could push as a >>> replacement to ASDF. It passes the tests with SBCL. But the tests >>> could be extended to do more. >>> >>> Next, comes a similar revamp of ASDF-BINARY-LOCATIONS configuration. >>> Or maybe a wholesale replacement of ABL with something that's simpler >>> and configured in a way similar to source-registry? What do YOU think? >> >> I have an old copy of SBCL, 1.0.28, which I keep around (we pinned >> ourselves to that revision for a project I was working on), and I tried >> to run the test suite on this version of SBCL, 64-bit Mac. >> >> The test suite failed, and here are the last several lines of the output: >> >> ; compilation unit finished >> ; caught 2 STYLE-WARNING conditions >> ; printed 1 note >> >> >> ; /Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/asdf.fasl written >> ; compilation finished in 0:00:07.450 >> Testuite failed: ASDF compiled with warningsbash-3.2$ >> >> >> I thought that this might be a spurious failure having to do with being >> too stringent about what constitutes an ASDF compilation failure, so I >> tried to run the test suite again (figuring a compiled version of >> asdf.lisp would now be available), but it failed identically. >> >> Is this expected? Should I ticket this? >> >> I will report on ACL tests shortly. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Robert >> _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
