On 9/12/16 Sep 12 -6:13 PM, Elias Pipping wrote:
On 12 Sep 2016, at 23:33, Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.net wrote:
I ran the tests again on all three platforms.
Linux:
I’ve run tests on Linux again, now, too.
Are you running on head of master from common-lisp.net?
Unexpected test success on ecl-bytecodes (ECL 16.1.2) in this block:
;; forced, it should be later (DBG "Check that force reloading loads again") (setf test-package::*file3* :reset) (load-system 'test-asdf/force :force :all) (assert-compare (>= (get-file-stamp file1) file1-date)) (assert-equal test-package::*file3* t)
I do *not* see this on ECL non-bytecodes. The tests here fail as before.
I’ve hit the following regressions, some of which overlap with what you see:
- ECL 16.1.2 and newer fail test3.script in regular mode
- ECL 16.1.2 and newer fail test-force.script in ecl_bytescodes mode(+)
I believe that this is a non-failure -- previously this was tagged as an expected failure. Looks like Faré has removed that expected failure. Now ecl_bytecodes reports success on both Mac and Linux. This is 16.1.2.
I don't see a failure in test3.script, on either Mac or Linux.
- SBCL 1.1.13 now fails plenty of tests (11 to be precise). SBCL 1.3.9 and later are fine(++)
The last time I checked SBCL 1.3.9 (really a candidate for release), it failed because of some pathname-printing code. Passes for me now on Mac and Linux.
- MKCL-git(*) now fails test-make-build.script and test-program.script(**)
mkcl from git just now doesn't fail any tests for me.
I'd be interested to see what's going wrong in these failures that I cannot see.
(+) I don’t typically run such tests. It seems I should. (++) I did not test anything between 1.1.13 and 1.3.9 (*) needs to be very recent (**) that’s what https://github.com/jcbeaudoin/MKCL/issues/9 is about
Elias