On 9/18/11 Sep 18 -4:00 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Robert Goldman <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 9/17/11 Sep 17 -1:47 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Robert Goldman > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > ecl-bytecomp : first compile and load asdf, then call > > INSTALL-BYTECODES-COMPILER, then run the tests. > > > > ecl : first (require :CMP), then compile and load asdf, then > run tests. > > > > Question: does this recipe FORCE us to have the right > compiler for the > > tests? > > > > I do not fully understand the last question. What is "the right > > compiler". There are simply two, which may be used interchangably > > without problems -- otherwise to be reported as an error. > > What I want to do is to be able to set up two versions of the ASDF test > cases for ECL, one for ECL with the byte-compiler and one with it's > normal compiler. > > > Yes, the protocol above would achieve that. The only thing is that the > bytecodes compiler is not always present in ECL (someone may choose to > deactivate it) and it is only a recent development, not available in the > latest stable release -- I should make one soon. > > A way to check for it is to see whether INSTALL-BYTECODES-COMPILER is > fboundp.
So may we expect that the bytecodes compiler will NEVER be active out of the box? I.e., all we need to do is turn ON the bytecode compiler when we want it, not make sure it's off when we don't (for the purposes of testing)? Unfortunately, I am lost in the mire of RUN-SHELL-COMMAND, and it'll be a while before I can get to this (git can have multiple branches --- me, not so much!). thanks, r _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
