On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Elias Pipping <pipping.el...@icloud.com> wrote: > >> On 12 Sep 2016, at 23:33, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net> wrote: >> >> I ran the tests again on all three platforms. >> >> Linux: > > I’ve run tests on Linux again, now, too. > >> Unexpected test success on ecl-bytecodes (ECL 16.1.2) in this block: >> >> ;; forced, it should be later >> (DBG "Check that force reloading loads again") >> (setf test-package::*file3* :reset) >> (load-system 'test-asdf/force :force :all) >> (assert-compare (>= (get-file-stamp file1) file1-date)) >> (assert-equal test-package::*file3* t) >> I have the same unexpected success with ecl_bytecodes on Linux x64. Pushed fix.
>> I do *not* see this on ECL non-bytecodes. The tests here fail as before. > I see all tests passing on the latest ECL 16.1.2 from git ca7f510 on Linux x64, both with and without bytecodes. Native ECL had an intermittent non-reproducible failure in test-bundle making monolithic dlls, though. > I’ve hit the following regressions, some of which overlap with what you see: > > - ECL 16.1.2 and newer fail test3.script in regular mode > - ECL 16.1.2 and newer fail test-force.script in ecl_bytescodes mode(+) > - SBCL 1.1.13 now fails plenty of tests (11 to be precise). SBCL 1.3.9 and > later are fine(++) > - MKCL-git(*) now fails test-make-build.script and test-program.script(**) > > (+) I don’t typically run such tests. It seems I should. > (++) I did not test anything between 1.1.13 and 1.3.9 > (*) needs to be very recent > (**) that’s what https://github.com/jcbeaudoin/MKCL/issues/9 is about > The MKCL failures are expected. I don't have an old SBCL to test with. Can you send me the failure logs? PS: as for touch-file, it only modifies the asdf-cache by default; it won't hit the filesystem unless you explicitly use :in-filesystem t. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Endures the belief in Government "our" friend, no reform is possible. Perishes the superstition, only abolition is conceivable.