On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Elias Pipping pipping.elias@icloud.com 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.
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 have the same unexpected success with ecl_bytecodes on Linux x64. Pushed fix.
I do *not* see this on ECL non-bytecodes. The tests here fail as before.
I see all tests passing on the latest ECL 16.1.2 from git ca7f510 on Linux x64, both with and without bytecodes. Native ECL had an intermittent non-reproducible failure in test-bundle making monolithic dlls, though.
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(+)
- SBCL 1.1.13 now fails plenty of tests (11 to be precise). SBCL 1.3.9 and later are fine(++)
- MKCL-git(*) now fails test-make-build.script and test-program.script(**)
(+) 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
The MKCL failures are expected.
I don't have an old SBCL to test with. Can you send me the failure logs?
PS: as for touch-file, it only modifies the asdf-cache by default; it won't hit the filesystem unless you explicitly use :in-filesystem t.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Endures the belief in Government "our" friend, no reform is possible. Perishes the superstition, only abolition is conceivable.