asdf-devel April 2012

asdf-devel@common-lisp.net

14 participants
23 discussions

[asdf-devel] testing new ASDF
by Robert Goldman 11 Apr '12

11 Apr '12

All tests pass on Mac OS X until I get to CMUCL 20c, which still fails for reasons that seem unrelated to ACL. These are test-all-noupgrade. Will test with upgrade later. Note that I am still running 10.6, not the latest 10.7. It would probably be a Good Thing to find someone who will run the tests on 10.7. For the moment, I'm purging CMUCL from my test suite. Cheers, r

1 0

[asdf-devel] LOCALAPPDATA vs APPDATA
by Faré 01 Apr '12

01 Apr '12

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 14:35, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov(a)yandex.ru> wrote: > 01.04.2012, 22:19, "Faré" <fahree(a)gmail.com>: >>> 15.01.2012, 22:46, "Faré" <fahree(a)gmail.com>: >>>> I'm a bit surprised that LOCALAPPDATA includes Roaming\ instead of >>>> Local\ but then again I don't understand Windows paths very well. >> >>> If you are intrested, I just noticed: CLISP uses Roaming, while SBCL and CCL use Local. >>> (noticed with the ASDF version from the recent Quicklisp) >> >> Wow. Is that on the *same* machine? >> Because on all implementations but LispWorks, >> it's taken from the LOCALAPPDATA environment variable, >> and that shouldn't vary from one program to the other. > > Yes, same machine. > > I suppose you mean APPDATA variable, because it is mentioned in asdf.lisp, > but LOCALAPPDATA isn't. Anyway, the enviroment variable value is equal > in all the 3 lisps > ASDF has favoring LOCALAPPDATA over APPDATA since 2.015.6. But I see quicklisp is still using 2.014.6. Now, considering the ECL bug in 2.20 (aka 2.019.9), I recommend that ECL and/or Quicklisp should upgrade to 2.019.8 (if they upgrade), until 2.21 is ready (which it won't be until we fix those 20 systems that depend on something else than UTF-8). —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org (map()(lambda(n l)(princ(subseq (format nil "(~{~A~^ ~})~%"(let(r)(do-external-symbols(x :cl)(push x r))(sort r #'string< :key #'string))) n (+ n l)))(finish-output))'(875 949 8 6010 4863 371 11)'(4 3 5 5 3 2 2))

1 0

[asdf-devel] the same (asdf::implementation-identifier) for byte-compiler and lisp-to-C-compiler of ECL
by Anton Vodonosov 01 Apr '12

01 Apr '12

ECL offers two compiles: byte-compiler and lisp-to-C compiler. They produce incompatible .fasls (asdf::implementation-identifier) does not accounts the difference and returns the same value - ecl-11.1.1-win-x86. As implementation-identifier is used to compute output files location, the same file location is used to store .fasls of both ECL compilers (in my case C:\Users\anton\AppData\Roaming\common-lisp\cache\ecl-11.1.1-win-x86\). In result, if some files are compiled with byte-compiler, and latter user tries the lisp-to-C-compiler, he has errors during .fasl load.

2 5

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

asdf-devel April 2012