On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> wrote:
> Jean-Claude Beaudoin wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info > > <mailto:rpgold...@sift.info>> wrote: > > > > > > This morning I pulled an update from the mkcl git repo, rebuilt on my > > Linux Mint machine, and retested with the latest ASDF. All the tests > > that completed seemed to complete successfully, but > test-program.script > > hung, instead of completing. > > > > ... > > > > The block of the test that fails is "test program-op", "test > image-op" > > seems to complete successfully. > > > > This seems odd to me, since the result of the image test is a > standalone > > program: it doesn't need to be loaded into mkcl: > > > > ... > > > > So seems like the program-op should be able to do exactly what the > > image-op does, and work correctly. > > > > > > I just tried to have as clean a run at it as I can reasonably have it. > > So, from a freshly created directory, I did: > > > > git clone git://common-lisp.net/projects/mkcl/mkcl.git > > <http://common-lisp.net/projects/mkcl/mkcl.git> > > > > then built it with: (cd mkcl; configure; cd src; make install-local) > > Hm. I did a slightly different set of steps: > > cd mkcl > ./configure > make > sudo make install > > but these look like they should be equivalent (since I didn't set MKCL). > > It should be OK, it is just less self-contained in its effects. > > > > Followed by: > > > > git clone git://common-lisp.net/projects/asdf/asdf.git > > > > cd asdf; make t l=mkcl > > > > This resulted in: > > > > -#--------------------------------------- > > Using /home/jean-claude/tmp/ASDF/mkcl/src/bin/mkcl > > Ran 56 tests: > > 55 passing and 1 failing > > failing test(s): test-undeferred-warnings.script > > -#--------------------------------------- > > > > To view full results and failures, try the following command: > > less -p ABORTED build/results/mkcl-test.text > > make: *** [test-lisp] Error 1 > > jean-claude@mars> > > > > The last line just here above is my normal prompt, so no hang. > > As you see I do not reproduce the problem you mentioned. > > > > BTW, what happens in test-undeferred-warnings seems to be a syntax issue > but I am still unclear about it. > > What happens here is that there is a function with undeclared local > variables, but ASDF is not getting a warning from COMPILE-FILE, so it > mistakenly believes the build is successful. > > I don't think I wrote this test properly, though. In a message crossing > with this one, Faré has limited its applicability, but I'm not sure I > understand the change. Surely that system should not build successfully? > > I did a minor modification to test-undeferred-warnings.script and it passes now. Here is what "git diff" says: diff --git a/test/test-undeferred-warnings.script b/test/test-undeferred-warnings.script index 810bcd2..bf1cfdb 100644 --- a/test/test-undeferred-warnings.script +++ b/test/test-undeferred-warnings.script @@ -10,12 +10,12 @@ (def-test-system :undefined-variables :components ((:file "fun-with-undefined-locals"))) -(errors #+(or allegro clozure) compile-file-error +(errors #+(or allegro clozure mkcl) compile-file-error #+(or cmu scl) null #+sbcl compile-failed-error (let ((*compile-file-warnings-behaviour* :error)) (load-system :undefined-variables))) -(errors #+(or allegro clozure) compile-file-error +(errors #+(or allegro clozure mkcl) compile-file-error #+(or cmu scl) null #+sbcl compile-failed-error (let ((*compile-file-warnings-behaviour* :warning)) Maybe a #-(or <all-of-the-above>) should be added after the set of #+ to make sure that macro "errors" always gets the right number of arguments. Cheers, JCB
_______________________________________________ Asdf-devel mailing list Asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://mailman.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
