Speaking of asdf-bundle and ECL... In ASDF 3.1, I renamed the misnomer binary-op to deliver-asd-op; is there any user in the ECL world who cares about that old name from asdf-ecl? I could add a backward-compatible shim.
While I'm at renaming misnomers, I'd like to rename fasl-op to compile-bundle-op and load-fasl-op to load-bundle-op. I expect these classes to be used, though, and do intend to have backward-compatible classes available — even though nothing shows in either the ECL sources or Quicklisp. [I need to confirm these renamings with the current ASDF maintainer, though]. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Yield to temptation; it may never pass your way again. — Robert Heinlein, "Time Enough For Love" On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
