asdf-devel

asdf-devel@common-lisp.net

1 participants
1378 discussions

Test-multiple
by Robert Goldman 20 Feb '18

20 Feb '18

Faré --- Would you please add some comments to test-multiple? I got a failure on that with MKCL under jenkins on linux, but cannot replicate that failure running it myself. There's no comment saying what this is supposed to test, other than the name, which suggests that it's about testing where there are ... multiple systems defined (incorrectly) in one .asd file? the same systems defined in multiple .asd files? The test checks to make sure (I believe) that a variable is not rebound when we ask to reload a system, but not how this pertains to correct ASDF function. thanks! r

3 7

Issues with package location information on SBCL
by Eric Timmons 17 Feb '18

17 Feb '18

I've started testing ASDF 3.3.1.3 with my group's code on SBCL 1.4.4 and noticed some issues with uiop:define-package (due to commit 8281e011). First, when compiling ASDF I get 456 compilation notes (https://pastebin.com/NnRUKGWe). I get the same notes when using uiop:define-package in our code as well. I honestly think this is an issue of SBCL being over aggressive. It's also odd because if the recording of the source location is removed, then the notes aren't produced. It appears this started happening in SBCL 1.4.1 (potentially due to commit af5e2ed1e). The volume of notes (especially when using package-inferred-system) can drown out real issues. I'll likely report this as an issue to SBCL since the keywords *should* be constant and the source transform for apply doesn't seem to be preserving that. However, it could also be fixed in ASDF by changing the apply to a funcall in the define-package expansion (patch 2). Second, the comma on (sb-c:source-location) seems to cause the source location for the package to always point to the body of the define-package macro. Patch 1 changes this so that form is evaluated after the macro is expanded. I didn't test this on anything earlier than SBCL 1.4.4, but I don't believe this behavior is version dependent. -Eric

2 1

hu.dwim.zlib broke; broken operation-done-p
by Attila Lendvai 04 Feb '18

04 Feb '18

if you issue the following (available in quicklisp): (asdf:load-system :hu.dwim.zlib) then for the first time it should generate a lisp file, which then gets compiled and loaded. issuing it for the second time shouldn't do anything, but since some revisions it regenerates the lisp file every time. the relevant code is somewhere around here: https://github.com/cffi/cffi/blob/master/src/c2ffi/asdf.lisp#L135 i tried to trace the INPUT-FILES, OUTPUT-FILES, PERFORM, OPERATION-DONE-P methods, but i don't see anything wrong. one unusual thing is that the output of GENERATE-LISP-OP goes into the src/ directory, not to the usual fasl output dir. same applies to GENERATE-SPEC-OP. any ideas how to debug this? or what to look at? -- • attila lendvai • PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 -- “For an instant I think I saw. I saw the loneliness of man as a gigantic wave which had been frozen in front of me, held back by the invisible wall of a metaphor.” — Carlos Castaneda (1925–1998), 'Journey to Ixtlan' (1972)

2 6

Multiple processing compiling the same file
by Jim Newton 31 Jan '18

31 Jan '18

If I run several sbcl processes on different nodes in my compute cluster, it might happen that two different runs notice the same file needs to be recompiled (via asdf), and they might try to compile it at the same time. What is the best way to prevent this? I see in the asdf documentation that there is an asdf:*user-cache* variable whose value is the path name of the directory where asdf compiles into. Would it be advisable for my to arrange so that asdf:*user-cache* is a function of the pid and hostname and perhaps thread-id (if such a thing exists) to avoid such collisions? Or is there some better way to handle this which is build into asdf?

4 9

spurious reloads with systems not following the foo/bar naming convention?
by Attila Lendvai 31 Jan '18

31 Jan '18

dear list, i noticed it with CXML, but here's a smaller system to reproduce it with: git clone https://github.com/mmaul/cl-influxdb.git (ql:quickload :cl-influxdb) (asdf:load-system :cl-influxdb.examples) each time the examples are loaded the main systems gets reloaded. i see something interesting in the output that may be related: WARNING: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action (ASDF/LISP-ACTION:PREPARE-OP "cl-influxdb" "cl-influxdb"), but dependency (ASDF/LISP-ACTION:LOAD-OP "cl-influxdb" "package") wasn't done yet! CL-USER> (asdf:asdf-version) "3.3.1.1" CL-USER> (lisp-implementation-version) "1.4.1.98.hu.dwim.3-a860f4780" -- • attila lendvai • PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 -- “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.” — Steven Weinberg (1933–), 'A Designer Universe?'

2 3

Including uiop and not asdf in a built application
by Dave Cooper 16 Jan '18

16 Jan '18

Hi (I'm not sure who is current lead maintainer, but hopefully the group will have some wisdom), First of all, Happy New Year and thank you to whomever is monitoring this list. Your efforts are highly appreciated. Our build process for Gendl and GDL for the past several years has involved using monolithic-compile-bundle-op to make concatenated fasls, then loading these fasls into an empty image to create the final build. We do depend on (and include) uiop, but not asdf, in our final build product. In order to have uiop available separately for inclusion in the monolithic-compile-bundles, we have been putting a copy of the uiop/ directory (of the same version as the ASDF we're using) into quicklisp/local-projects/. Some time between ASDF 3.2.0.1 and ASDF 3.3.1, the function check-not-old-asdf-system got modified to add "uiop" to the test (first line of the function). This results (in ASDF 3.3.1) in a same-version uiop not getting loaded at all into a monolithic-compile-bundle, even if the system of said monolithic-compile-bundle contains a dependency on uiop and uiop is available in quicklisp/local-projects/. For this reason, out-of-the-box ASDF 3.3.1 was not working for our build process. I have "fixed" the problem temporarily by modifying my local asdf.lisp to remove the "uiop" from the test, i.e. I've replaced (or (not (member name '("asdf" "uiop") :test 'equal)) .... with (or (not (member name '("asdf") :test 'equal)) ... as the first line of the defun check-not-old-asdf-system. Question: Is there a supported way to do what I'm trying to do, without modifying the ASDF source code? Intuitively, it seems to me that we should be able to include uiop in build products using monolithic-compile-bundle-op, without including asdf. -- My Best, Dave Cooper, david.cooper(a)gen.works genworks.com, gendl.org +1 248-330-2979

3 4

package pollution by asdf
by Sam Steingold 16 Jan '18

16 Jan '18

Hi, When I start CLISP with the full linking set (i.e., including all possible extensions), I have 63 packages in (list-all-packages), and 37 of them (more than half!) comes from asdf (22 ASDF/* and 15 UIOP/*). I wonder if I am the only one unhappy about this. In particular, has it ever been considered that it might be a good idea to limit the number of packages asdf creates? Thanks. -- Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on darwin Ns 10.3.1561 http://steingoldpsychology.com http://www.childpsy.net http://www.memritv.org http://www.dhimmitude.org http://honestreporting.com http://no2bds.org WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?

3 2

Syntax control code
by Robert Goldman 07 Jan '18

07 Jan '18

I just pushed an edit of syntax-control.md in which I try to capture the terminology. Status: several Allegro failures break for me on test-syntax-control. Results from Linux: build/results/allegro8_64-test.text build/results/allegro8_64_s-test.text build/results/allegromodern8_64-test.text build/results/allegromodern8_64_s-test.text build/results/allegromodern_64-test.text build/results/allegromodern_64_s-test.text These failures seem to be due to NAMED-READTABLES not working properly on these platforms, rather than on anything ASDF itself does. Concern: As I was reading over syntax-control.md, it was brought home to me that the ASDF shared syntax is initialized to the *initial syntax* on the host implementation, rather than the standard syntax of ANSI CL. My understanding is that this is done for backwards-compatibility with some QL systems that assume they have access to extended syntax from some implementation(s). I'm concerned that this will create a maintenance headache going forward just so someone *else* can avoid making some minor clean-up. Should we just suck it up and make the shared syntax start out with the initial syntax? Why not break it now, and save ourselves trouble later? Also, it seems like "initial syntax" is not well-defined, even on a single implementation, since ASDF might be loaded at arbitrary times, possibly after modifications to the "initial initial" readtable. Finally, going forward, people will be yelling at *us* if implementations change their initial syntax. Unless there's a really important reason to keep this, I think we should kill it.

4 4

One bug down, one bug up
by Faré 03 Jan '18

03 Jan '18

Dear future maintainers of ASDF, I have great news for you if you were looking for an opportunity to learn about the guts of ASDF: a new bug that will cover a lot of ground, yet is relatively well-understood, and isn't urgent at all. I wouldn't make it anyone's first bug, but once you have some experience, it might be great bug to get really into it. Context: I did this interactive debugging session, but it went quite slow and after two hours we only narrowed down the root issue: we needed the primary-system-* functions to distinguish between "syntactic" and "semantic" primariness, since the two notions aren't identical in the existing codebase, and my just ignoring the issue caused these spurious rebuilds. I once again failed to properly record the 2.5 hour interaction, but one of the participants might have done so, though it's not as valuable as I'd have hoped. Then, It took me the next morning to slowly develop a bug fix. See explanation in the bug and code in the MR: https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1739514 https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/merge_requests/91 Now now now, while thinking very hard about the correct fix to the above bug, and especially about the up-to-date-p condition in find-system, I realized that there was a lingering bug in it, of the kind order as the bug that broke ASDF 2, except in a much rarer situation: if you update the defsystem-depends-on of a loaded system a that could cause a change in how the a.asd file would be evaluated; then this should trigger a reload of a.asd when you next operate on a; but it won't because the timestamp is not propagated, because find-system fails to integrate well enough with the dependency graph usage and construction (which integration is new with 3.3). https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1741083 This seems to be like it's "just" a variant at the meta-level of the famous bug that broke ASDF 2 (see my 25 page paper on the history of ASDF about that). Except that now the infrastructure to propagate timestamps, what more across evaluation phases, already exists; therefore fixing this bug should mostly "just" use the existing infrastructure. Then again, it could possibly break the universe again, though I bet it won't: I believe there should be "just" an update of find-system and the creation of a new operation class prepare-define-op. In any case, not my problem anymore, because it's clearly not a regression. But a great opportunity for whoever steps up and fixes this bug and whatever else they find. You better step forward while I'm still here to answer questions: considering how hard it was for me to page back the crucial elements of the algorithm into memory after just one year, don't wait. PS: Another exercise for a future ASDF maintainer would be to do the boring work and fix all the 300+ systems on Quicklisp that trigger the bad-system-name warning, one by one. This is also a great exercise for getting to know what kind of clients are around. And for fixing them according to my best_practices document. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Every great truth begins as heresy and ends as superstition. — Thomas Henry Huxley

1 0

ASDF debugging on Hangouts?
by Faré 27 Dec '17

27 Dec '17

Dear CLers, with ASDF 3.3.1 released and the syntax-control branch pending review, there's not much left for me to do with ASDF before I actually retire. Now I'm looking for hackers to whom to pass the torch of ASDF hacking. It so happens that I seem to have introduced (probably with 3.3.0) a regression that breaks static image dumping of workout-timer with cffi-toolchain. If people are interested, I could do the entire debugging session over Google Hangouts, from isolating the bug and filing a bug report to writing regression test and submitting a merge request. That would be a good way to introduce newcomers to ASDF hacking. Having a public ask questions as I make progress would be a good way to keep the video relevant. Is anyone interested? —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org If there's a book you really want to read but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it. — Toni Morrison [same with software, —♯f]

8 23

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

asdf-devel