Overall, the results look good. Robert, shall we release now?
1- For ECL, it looks like you may have kept old fasls from a run with a previous version of asdf. Is that correct? That could explain some confusion with escape-command.
2- For those CFFI failures, I'd like to see the logs for the stdout. See previous message on redirecting output, using launch-program if needs be.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Reevaluate your ends periodically — if some of them or in contradiction with reality or with each other, abandon or amend them without mercy — and those you keep, pursue without any apology.
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Anton Vodonosov avodonosov@yandex.ru wrote:
Current results: https://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/asdf/asdf-diff-56.html This reports includes only the subset of full diff where new version has failures.
The lisps completed so far: ccl-1.10-r16196-f96-linux-x86 ccl-1.11-r16635-f96-linux-x86 clisp-2.49-unix-x86 cmu-snapshot-2016-12__21b_unicode_-linux-x86 ecl-16.1.2-unknown-linux-x86-bytecode ecl-16.1.2-unknown-linux-x86-lisp-to-c sbcl-1.3.12-linux-x86
If speak about SBCL results in this report, where previous test has CRASH and new one has ffi/ffi-grovel FAIL
- it's an improvement, because the new version seem to better catch
errors of running external programs.
Why there are so many strange errors on ECL - I can't say now, deeper analysis is needed. Both tests were run on the same machine.