On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:18:08 +0600, Josh Elsasser wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 03:59:44AM +0600, Alexandr Shadchin wrote:
>> Hi, Ports!
>>
>> This update package SBCL to the latest release 1.0.37.
>
> Is there any particular reason you need this version of SBCL, or is it
> just because it's several months old by now?
>
Maxima gives better performance when using SBCL (compared to ECL and
Clisp). I wanted to see would be to increase performance, performance
has not changed, but all tests pass safely.
I decided to send a diff can anyone be useful.
>> Tested on i386.
>
> I assume this means that 'make regress' showed only expected failures.
>
regress.log (I can send a fully):
...
Finished running tests.
Status:
Expected failure: debug.impure.lisp / (UNDEFINED-FUNCTION BUG-353)
Unexpected success: debug.impure.lisp / (THROW NO-SUCH-TAG)
Expected failure: packages.impure.lisp / USE-PACKAGE-CONFLICT-SET
Expected failure: packages.impure.lisp / IMPORT-SINGLE-CONFLICT
ok
//apparent success (reached end of run-tests.sh normally)
Wed Mar 30 07:21:43 YEKST 2010
>> Comments ? OK ?
>
> I don't see any need for this update unless it actually provides
> some real advantage over the existing version. However I have no
> objection as long as the regress tests pass on both i386 and amd64.
>
>> also need to patch texinfo
>>
>> makeinfo -html --css-include=foo.css bar.texinfo
>>
>> Opens file foo.css, but not close it, which may lead to error:
>> Too many open files
>>
>> I received this error when porting sbcl-1.0.37
>
> Hm, interesting. Are you saying that this one extra open file causes
> makeinfo to hit the fd limit? Or does it open the file in a loop
> without closing it? Perhaps the manual has simply grown complex enough
> that you need higher resource limits to build it.
>
>> --
>> Alexandr Shadchin
>
> Comments on the diff follow.
>
>> Index: Makefile
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /cvs/ports/lang/sbcl/Makefile,v
>> retrieving revision 1.3
>> diff -u -p -r1.3 Makefile
>> --- Makefile 17 Nov 2009 10:44:59 -0000 1.3
>> +++ Makefile 30 Mar 2010 21:50:04 -0000
>> @@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
>> # $OpenBSD: Makefile,v 1.3 2009/11/17 10:44:59 pirofti Exp $
>>
>> # not yet ported to other arches
>> -ONLY_FOR_ARCHS = amd64 i386
>> +ONLY_FOR_ARCHS= amd64 i386
>
> What is the reason for all these whitespace changes? I believe a space
> after the variable name is the preferred style now.
>
I decided to make a monotonous, with no space was more :)
[snip]
>> Index: makeinfo/html.c
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /cvs/src/gnu/usr.bin/texinfo/makeinfo/html.c,v
>> retrieving revision 1.2
>> diff -u -p -r1.2 html.c
>> --- makeinfo/html.c 17 Jul 2006 22:29:29 -0000 1.2
>> +++ makeinfo/html.c 6 Mar 2010 11:27:38 -0000
>> @@ -167,6 +167,9 @@ process_css_file (char *filename)
>> lastchar = c;
>> }
>>
>> + if (f != stdin)
>> + fclose(f);
>> +
>> /* Reached the end of the file. We should not be still in a comment. */
>> if (state == comment_state)
>> warning (_("%s:%d: --css-file ended in comment"), filename, lineno);
>
> You should probably submit this separately with sendbug.
>
I have already written in Tech@, no reaction was.
--
Alexandr Shadchin
