asdf-devel

asdf-devel@common-lisp.net

5 participants
1375 discussions

Re: A CFFI -ASDF integration bug
by Ilya Perminov 04 Aug '20

04 Aug '20

The around methed will look something like this (defmethod input-files :around ((o asdf/bundle::gather-operation) (c system)) (unless (eq (asdf/bundle::bundle-type o) :no-output-file) (append (call-next-method) (remove-if-not (asdf/bundle::pathname-type-equal-function (asdf/bundle::bundle-pathname-type (asdf/bundle::gather-type o))) (mappend (lambda (c) (output-files 'process-op c)) (asdf/component:sub-components c :type 'wrapper-file)))))) To my taste it knows too much about ASDF guts, but maybe it is not too bad.

2 3

Re: A CFFI -ASDF integration bug
by Ilya Perminov 04 Aug '20

04 Aug '20

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:51 PM Robert Goldman <rpgoldman(a)sift.info> wrote: > I don't claim to understand this process, but wouldn't it be possible for you to make your own input-files :around method for gather-operation that would collect the outputs from the process-op's and add them to what you want? I think it is a reasonable option, at least I like it more than what CFFI does now. input-files for gather-operation is defined on SYSTEM, so the around method will have to fetch all WRAPPER-FILEs from a system. gather-type and probably some other functions, that the around method will need, are not exported from ASDF though. > That said, I can think of a simpler, and easier method, and that would be to override the operation-done-p method for the compile-op so that it knows that the .o and .so files are generated by the compile-op, and only pays attention to the relationship between bindings-file.lisp and bindings-file.fasl. I do not think it will work, because up-to-date check happens outside of operation-done-p. compute-action-stamp: (and all-present ;; if all filesystem effects are up-to-date up-to-date-p (operation-done-p o c) ;; and there's no invalidating reason. > One thing you didn't say was what it means that the compile-op is done over and over -- is it only compiling the bindings-file, or is it doing something to the object files? I don't believe it should change the .o and .so files, because those are already compiled by process-op, right? Yes, only the lisp file gets recompiled. compile-op does not do anything to the .o and .so files, they are just its fake outputs.

1 0

Apologies for slow progress...
by Robert Goldman 02 Aug '20

02 Aug '20

I'm afraid I have been very busy at work, but also the linux box I have been using as my Jenkins platform had a disk failure, taking it out of action. No data was lost, but my employer has been supplying this, and I have to wait in the queue, after business requirements, for the IT folks to get me a new server configured for this purpose. This has unavoidably hindered my work on ASDF. I'm open to suggestions about alternative resources for running these tests, but there are special challenges because I need to be able to put commercial software (Allegro CL and LispWorks) on any test server, which I think rules out using Travis. If anyone has hosting suggestions, please let me know: otherwise I'm afraid we'll be limping along till September, which is unfortunate, since we have a bunch of fixes and bug reports, and I would very much like to be able to get these wrapped up into a bug fix release. I hope you all are staying safe and healthy!

6 6

RE: Re: ASDF/INTERFACE::TRAVERSE-SUB-ACTIONS
by Marco Antoniotti 05 May '20

05 May '20

1 0

RE: Re: ASDF/INTERFACE::TRAVERSE-SUB-ACTIONS
by Marco Antoniotti 05 May '20

05 May '20

3 2

RE: Re: ASDF/INTERFACE::TRAVERSE-SUB-ACTIONS
by Marco Antoniotti 05 May '20

05 May '20

2 1

RE: Re: ASDF/INTERFACE::TRAVERSE-SUB-ACTIONS
by Marco Antoniotti 05 May '20

05 May '20

2 1

RE: Re: ASDF/INTERFACE::TRAVERSE-SUB-ACTIONS
by Marco Antoniotti 05 May '20

05 May '20

2 1

ASDF/INTERFACE::TRAVERSE-SUB-ACTIONS
by Marco Antoniotti 05 May '20

05 May '20

2 1

Help with random testing file system functions
by Paul Griffioen 05 May '20

05 May '20

Hi all, Would anybody be willing to help me with the clfs package I have written? The package defines contracts for all Common Lisp and UIOP file system operations and can run random tests with them. I would like to see what the random testing does on different combinations of lisp implementations and file systems, and if implementation independent contracts are feasible. If the package works across implementations then the contracts can help testing uiop and also each implementation's conformance to the hyperspec. The problem is of course that the operations are not defined that precisely, but results so far seem promising. I have run the tests on Linux and Windows for sbcl and ccl. At this point there are some edge cases left, but the general concept seems to work without too many implementation specific details in the contracts. The package can be found at https://github.com/lisper99/clfs. To run the test you have to load the clfs-test package, create an empty directory somewhere and call function clfs-test:test-contracts with the directory as argument. Any feedback or suggestions is appreciated. Paul Griffioen

1 0

← Newer
1
...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
...
138
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

asdf-devel