BTW, as of commit ea469db (3.1.0.49) on Linux x64, all tests pass for
me with no unexpected failures.
ASDF_TEST_LISPS="ccl clisp sbcl cmucl allegro allegromodern lispworks
ecl_bytecodes ecl abcl xcl gcl"
PS: The code walkthrough is scheduled for Sunday January 26th 2014 at
1400 EST (1900 UTC)
—♯ƒ
> I get this, and the recoding is a HUGE improvement. Furthermore, you
> have convinced me that we can't unwind this change in any way that won't
> create yet more damage.
>
> However:
> a. This change is not backward-compatible
>
Actually, I looked again, and paren-compile-op is actually unaffec
Faré wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Robert P. Goldman
> wrote:
>> While there are bug fixes waiting to reach our users, I'm quite
>> concerned by the loss of backwards compatibility in systems that defined
>> their own OPERATION subclasses.
>>
> This backward incompatibility already ha
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Robert P. Goldman wrote:
> While there are bug fixes waiting to reach our users, I'm quite
> concerned by the loss of backwards compatibility in systems that defined
> their own OPERATION subclasses.
>
This backward incompatibility already happened a year ago:
it w
Faré wrote:
> I'm re-running all the tests with ASDF 3.1.0.35. Looking good so far.
> Please keep testing in view of a release 3.1.1.
I'm interested in a release relatively soon, but I'm not in a rush.
While there are bug fixes waiting to reach our users, I'm quite
concerned by the loss of backwa
OK, so I've run complete tests of ASDF 3.1.0.34 on Linux x64 with
ASDF_TEST_LISPS="ccl clisp sbcl cmucl allegro allegromodern lispworks
ecl_bytecodes ecl abcl xcl gcl"
I got one unexpected failure, excepted failures:
cmucl upgrade total failure https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1209272
3 failur
Ups, I am sorry I posted cl-test-grid question to wrong thread.
I wanted to post to "Releasing asdf 3.1.1" but got
into " Testing ASDF with ABCL under Windows (was Re: [asdf-devel] Releasing
asdf 3.1.1 ?)"
31.12.2013, 10:31, "Faré" :
> Dear Anton,
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Anton Vodonosov wrote:
>
>> I have started cl-test-grid tests with the latest ASDF (git revision
>> 38337a5)
>> After SBCL and CCL tests complete we can run tests on the previous ASDF
>> and compare results.
>
> Tha
Dear Anton,
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Anton Vodonosov wrote:
> I have started cl-test-grid tests with the latest ASDF (git revision 38337a5)
> After SBCL and CCL tests complete we can run tests on the previous ASDF
> and compare results.
>
Thanks a whole lot for cl-test-grid, it has been e
I have started cl-test-grid tests with the latest ASDF (git revision 38337a5)
After SBCL and CCL tests complete we can run tests on the previous ASDF
and compare results.
The question: what is the previous stable and tested ASDF version?
Best regards,
- Anton
27.12.2013, 17:34, "Mark Evenson" :
On Dec 20, 2013, at 22:34, Mark Evenson wrote:
[…]
> It isn’t quite clear how to run the tests under Windows. I am using Cygwin,
> so I thought I could just ensure that ‘abcl’ is in my path and symlinked to
> ‘abcl.bat
>
> cygwin-bash$ sh run-tests.sh abcl
>
> but I get an “access
The Linux CLISP failures are the same as before: all file accesses
fail, probably due to the weird filesharing setup, that doesn't
provide whatever syscalls that CLISP relies on.
The Windows CLISP failures have all directory accesses fail, with file
access working, so I suppose it's balancing the
Hi Mark,
Here is my toplevel "run" script which I run from cygwin, from the parent
of the git clone'd asdf/ directory.
I commented all the ASDF_TEST_LISPS for windows so as to leave only abcl.
You should just have to edit the line
export ABCL=...
to match the location of your abcl executable
On Dec 19, 2013, at 17:23, Mark Evenson wrote:
[…]
>
> I’ll take a look at the ABCL problem in the next day, reporting back to the
> list if I have a fix
Unfortunately, I have come to the end of a long day for me without much to
report as I have spent most of my non-work time mucking with g
>
> CLISP tries to open a file for writing on your filesystem, and gets a
> UNIX error 71 (EPROTO): Protocol error
>
> I suppose this is a CLISP bug — maybe it's trying a filesystem syscall
> not available via NFS (or however your filesystem is mounted — how is
> that?).
>
It is a virtualbox "sha
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Dave Cooper wrote:
>>
>> I will. I can also try with using the local filesystem instead of the
>> "weird" shared filesystem from the virtual host. Will do the 3.1.0.27 with
>> the current setup first, and try that next. Sticking with Linux only until
>> things set
>
>
> I will. I can also try with using the local filesystem instead of the
> "weird" shared filesystem from the virtual host. Will do the 3.1.0.27 with
> the current setup first, and try that next. Sticking with Linux only until
> things settle out then will revisit the Windows testing.
>
Indeed
Managed to crash both my virtual machines while trying to do some
manipulation of a Lidar (LAS) geodata file containing almost 2 million 3D
points on the host and gobbling up all physical RAM... will have to fire
these VMs up again tomorrow...
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Faré wrote:
> We
Well, my procrastination has yielded renewed XCL support, for what
it's worth (admittedly not much, besides testing).
PS: Mark, if you have more debugging cycles, check the abcl
workarounds in our test framework:
grep '#.*abcl' *.script */*.lisp
Each of them might be an ABCL bug, or may have to
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Faré wrote:
> OK, I'm sick and tired, but I'm even more obsessive and
> procrastinating, so I hacked asdf-pathname-test some more.
>
> This file is a big pile of fail, some of it maybe due to the
> three-star programming of the original by janderson, a lot of it n
OK, I'm sick and tired, but I'm even more obsessive and
procrastinating, so I hacked asdf-pathname-test some more.
This file is a big pile of fail, some of it maybe due to the
three-star programming of the original by janderson, a lot of it no
doubt due to my trying and failing to make sense of it
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Dave Cooper wrote:
>
> Finished clisp on Linux, still the one failure for pathname, here is the
> -test.text and -pathnames.text:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jc2cqwpkp06dupm/Jmq7a3BhtZ/asdf-failures/3.1.0.26
>
> Windows tests still running, results will be copie
Finished clisp on Linux, still the one failure for pathname, here is the
-test.text and -pathnames.text:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jc2cqwpkp06dupm/Jmq7a3BhtZ/asdf-failures/3.1.0.26
Windows tests still running, results will be copied into windows/ folder at
above location.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Dave Cooper wrote:
>
> I had a couple failures: abcl/windows, clisp/windows, clisp/linux:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jc2cqwpkp06dupm/1IBEQ9XyKi/asdf-failures/3.1.0.24
>
OK, can you try the latest, 3.1.0.26, where undo a previous hack and
punt for the ending sp
I had a couple failures: abcl/windows, clisp/windows, clisp/linux:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jc2cqwpkp06dupm/1IBEQ9XyKi/asdf-failures/3.1.0.24
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Faré wrote:
> Dear Robert,
>
> do you think we can release this year?
> All tests pass for me on Linux, and I bel
On Dec 19, 2013, at 17:20, Robert Goldman wrote:
> Faré wrote:
>> Dear Robert,
>>
>> do you think we can release this year?
>> All tests pass for me on Linux, and I believe all tests were passing
>> for Dave Cooper on Windows. There has been very light development this
>> past month, with no in
Faré wrote:
> Dear Robert,
>
> do you think we can release this year?
> All tests pass for me on Linux, and I believe all tests were passing
> for Dave Cooper on Windows. There has been very light development this
> past month, with no intent for further development ahead, but notable
> new feature
Dear Robert,
do you think we can release this year?
All tests pass for me on Linux, and I believe all tests were passing
for Dave Cooper on Windows. There has been very light development this
past month, with no intent for further development ahead, but notable
new features and bug fixes since the
28 matches
Mail list logo
