On 8/22/16 Aug 22 -10:30 AM, Drew C wrote: > Hey, > > How does this differ from the "Monthly-or-so" tests that Quicklisp does > with cl-test-grid? Is there anything beyond `make test-lisp`, or is this > a simple "try to build the ASDF master branch on Linux/x64 and report if > it fails"?
My understanding is that cl-test-grid tests Quicklisp, and that Quicklisp does not run the bleeding edge of ASDF. But I could be wrong. For example, using the report URL you provided, I see in the cell for ccl-1.9: (LOAD city-hash FAIL) needs newer ASDF, ASDF/FIND-SYSTEM:LOAD-SYSTEM-DEFINITION-ERROR : Error while trying to load definition for system swap-bytes from pathname /home/testgrid/cl-test-grid/work-dir/agent/quicklisp/dists/quicklisp/software/swap-bytes-20151218-git/swap-bytes.asd: You need ASDF >= 3.1 to load this system correctly. Best, r > > For example, I notice that they used sbcl-1.0.58 in the last test[1] . > What issues did you have with those earlier versions that were'fixed' in > 1.1.13? Is there a report of your testing available that I could look at > beyond a quick email? > > Beyond that, looks good! > > Thanks, > > Drew Crampsie > > [1] > https://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/ql/quicklisp-2016-06-28-diff.html > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Elias Pipping <pipping.el...@icloud.com > <mailto:pipping.el...@icloud.com>> wrote: > > Dear list, > > I've been meaning to find out what lisp compilers/interpreters are > effectively supported > by current ASDF, to the point where they pass `make test-lisp` > without a single (potentially > harmless error), such as those stemming e.g. from unexpected warnings. > I’ve now gotten around to a bit of testing. For future reference, on > a recent Linux, with > ASDF 3.1.7.7, the answer is as follows: > > ABCL: 1.2.0 (2013-06-01) or later looks good(*) > Allegro CL: 10.0 Express Edition looks good(**) > CCL: 1.10 (2014-09-12) or later looks good(***) > CLISP: 2.49 (2010-07-07) looks good; hg checkout segfaults in > asdf-pathname-test.script > CMUCL: 20e (2013-09-28) or later looks good(+) > ECL: 16.0.0 (2015-08-28) or later looks good > LispWorks: HobbyistDV/Professional/Enterprise edition of 7.0 > (2015-05-05) would probably look good(++1) > LispWorks: Professional edition of 6.1 (and presumably others) > currently emit an unexpected warning(++2) > MKCL: 1.1.9 hangs in test-try-refinding.script; git checkout looks good > SBCL: 1.1.13 (2013-10-31) or later looks good(+++) > > (*) sys::concatenate-fasls requires 1.2.0 or later > (**) 9.0 can no longer be downloaded so that I could not test with > earlier versions > (***) 1.9 and earlier are broken on recent versions of linux, see > http://trac.clozure.com/ccl/ticket/1208 > <http://trac.clozure.com/ccl/ticket/1208> > (+) 20c/20d has known CLOS issues. > (++1) I do not have access to them, so I cannot say for sure. The > Hobbyist and Personal edition > lack application delivery and image saving functionality, > respectively. The tests put those features > to the test and currently fail if they’re unavailable. > (++2) causing `make test-lisp` to fail; This started with ASDF > 3.1.7.5; 3.1.7.4 was fine. > (+++) sb-debug:print-backtrace requires 1.1.5 or later, bundles > require 1.1.13 or later > > > Elias > >
