On 2/4/10 Feb 4 -9:55 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Faré <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I still would recommend 1.601 as it is an "official" release (whatever > that means) whereas 1.596 isn't. > > > Thanks. That is all I was asking for. > > > Note that ECL passes tests, if only I tell the test suite to not worry > about the warnings ECL issues while compiling asdf.lisp. It is > probably a bug in ECL that it should issue these warnings: plenty of > unused variable warnings for variables used while dispatching methods, > warnings about an unused variables CLOS::.GENERIC-FUNCTION.SI::TEMP as > introduced by ECL itself in some macro. Also annoying notes about > .COMBINED-METHOD-ARGS. was undefined. Compiler assumes it is a global. > Unknown type (VALUES &REST T) > And one about ECL expecting two arguments from unintern. > The problem with ignoring warnings from ECL is that, though I ignore > bogus warnings now, I may be ignoring valid warnings tomorrow. > > > I was aware of some of those warnings (.combined-method-args., > *next-method*), as reported by other users and now fixed in the upcoming > release, but not of others (temp?). In this case you should have > immediately reported that problem so that I look at it, which I will do > before the next release.
FWIW, I was having this problem with SBCL, too, and one of my recent patches is to make the test suite ignore style-warnings when compiling asdf.lisp (which used to cause the test suite to crash). r _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
