Dear list,
I've been meaning to find out what lisp compilers/interpreters are effectively supported by current ASDF, to the point where they pass `make test-lisp` without a single (potentially harmless error), such as those stemming e.g. from unexpected warnings. I’ve now gotten around to a bit of testing. For future reference, on a recent Linux, with ASDF 3.1.7.7, the answer is as follows:
ABCL: 1.2.0 (2013-06-01) or later looks good(*) Allegro CL: 10.0 Express Edition looks good(**) CCL: 1.10 (2014-09-12) or later looks good(***) CLISP: 2.49 (2010-07-07) looks good; hg checkout segfaults in asdf-pathname-test.script CMUCL: 20e (2013-09-28) or later looks good(+) ECL: 16.0.0 (2015-08-28) or later looks good LispWorks: HobbyistDV/Professional/Enterprise edition of 7.0 (2015-05-05) would probably look good(++1) LispWorks: Professional edition of 6.1 (and presumably others) currently emit an unexpected warning(++2) MKCL: 1.1.9 hangs in test-try-refinding.script; git checkout looks good SBCL: 1.1.13 (2013-10-31) or later looks good(+++)
(*) sys::concatenate-fasls requires 1.2.0 or later (**) 9.0 can no longer be downloaded so that I could not test with earlier versions (***) 1.9 and earlier are broken on recent versions of linux, see http://trac.clozure.com/ccl/ticket/1208 (+) 20c/20d has known CLOS issues. (++1) I do not have access to them, so I cannot say for sure. The Hobbyist and Personal edition lack application delivery and image saving functionality, respectively. The tests put those features to the test and currently fail if they’re unavailable. (++2) causing `make test-lisp` to fail; This started with ASDF 3.1.7.5; 3.1.7.4 was fine. (+++) sb-debug:print-backtrace requires 1.1.5 or later, bundles require 1.1.13 or later
Elias
Hey,
How does this differ from the "Monthly-or-so" tests that Quicklisp does with cl-test-grid? Is there anything beyond `make test-lisp`, or is this a simple "try to build the ASDF master branch on Linux/x64 and report if it fails"?
For example, I notice that they used sbcl-1.0.58 in the last test[1] . What issues did you have with those earlier versions that were'fixed' in 1.1.13? Is there a report of your testing available that I could look at beyond a quick email?
Beyond that, looks good!
Thanks,
Drew Crampsie
[1] https://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/ql/quicklisp-2016-06-28-diff.ht...
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Elias Pipping pipping.elias@icloud.com wrote:
Dear list,
I've been meaning to find out what lisp compilers/interpreters are effectively supported by current ASDF, to the point where they pass `make test-lisp` without a single (potentially harmless error), such as those stemming e.g. from unexpected warnings. I’ve now gotten around to a bit of testing. For future reference, on a recent Linux, with ASDF 3.1.7.7, the answer is as follows:
ABCL: 1.2.0 (2013-06-01) or later looks good(*) Allegro CL: 10.0 Express Edition looks good(**) CCL: 1.10 (2014-09-12) or later looks good(***) CLISP: 2.49 (2010-07-07) looks good; hg checkout segfaults in asdf-pathname-test.script CMUCL: 20e (2013-09-28) or later looks good(+) ECL: 16.0.0 (2015-08-28) or later looks good LispWorks: HobbyistDV/Professional/Enterprise edition of 7.0 (2015-05-05) would probably look good(++1) LispWorks: Professional edition of 6.1 (and presumably others) currently emit an unexpected warning(++2) MKCL: 1.1.9 hangs in test-try-refinding.script; git checkout looks good SBCL: 1.1.13 (2013-10-31) or later looks good(+++)
(*) sys::concatenate-fasls requires 1.2.0 or later (**) 9.0 can no longer be downloaded so that I could not test with earlier versions (***) 1.9 and earlier are broken on recent versions of linux, see http://trac.clozure.com/ccl/ticket/1208 (+) 20c/20d has known CLOS issues. (++1) I do not have access to them, so I cannot say for sure. The Hobbyist and Personal edition lack application delivery and image saving functionality, respectively. The tests put those features to the test and currently fail if they’re unavailable. (++2) causing `make test-lisp` to fail; This started with ASDF 3.1.7.5; 3.1.7.4 was fine. (+++) sb-debug:print-backtrace requires 1.1.5 or later, bundles require 1.1.13 or later
Elias
On 8/22/16 Aug 22 -10:30 AM, Drew C wrote:
Hey,
How does this differ from the "Monthly-or-so" tests that Quicklisp does with cl-test-grid? Is there anything beyond `make test-lisp`, or is this a simple "try to build the ASDF master branch on Linux/x64 and report if it fails"?
My understanding is that cl-test-grid tests Quicklisp, and that Quicklisp does not run the bleeding edge of ASDF. But I could be wrong.
For example, using the report URL you provided, I see in the cell for ccl-1.9:
(LOAD city-hash FAIL) needs newer ASDF, ASDF/FIND-SYSTEM:LOAD-SYSTEM-DEFINITION-ERROR : Error while trying to load definition for system swap-bytes from pathname /home/testgrid/cl-test-grid/work-dir/agent/quicklisp/dists/quicklisp/software/swap-bytes-20151218-git/swap-bytes.asd: You need ASDF >= 3.1 to load this system correctly.
Best, r
For example, I notice that they used sbcl-1.0.58 in the last test[1] . What issues did you have with those earlier versions that were'fixed' in 1.1.13? Is there a report of your testing available that I could look at beyond a quick email?
Beyond that, looks good!
Thanks,
Drew Crampsie
[1] https://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/ql/quicklisp-2016-06-28-diff.ht...
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Elias Pipping <pipping.elias@icloud.com mailto:pipping.elias@icloud.com> wrote:
Dear list, I've been meaning to find out what lisp compilers/interpreters are effectively supported by current ASDF, to the point where they pass `make test-lisp` without a single (potentially harmless error), such as those stemming e.g. from unexpected warnings. I’ve now gotten around to a bit of testing. For future reference, on a recent Linux, with ASDF 3.1.7.7, the answer is as follows: ABCL: 1.2.0 (2013-06-01) or later looks good(*) Allegro CL: 10.0 Express Edition looks good(**) CCL: 1.10 (2014-09-12) or later looks good(***) CLISP: 2.49 (2010-07-07) looks good; hg checkout segfaults in asdf-pathname-test.script CMUCL: 20e (2013-09-28) or later looks good(+) ECL: 16.0.0 (2015-08-28) or later looks good LispWorks: HobbyistDV/Professional/Enterprise edition of 7.0 (2015-05-05) would probably look good(++1) LispWorks: Professional edition of 6.1 (and presumably others) currently emit an unexpected warning(++2) MKCL: 1.1.9 hangs in test-try-refinding.script; git checkout looks good SBCL: 1.1.13 (2013-10-31) or later looks good(+++) (*) sys::concatenate-fasls requires 1.2.0 or later (**) 9.0 can no longer be downloaded so that I could not test with earlier versions (***) 1.9 and earlier are broken on recent versions of linux, see http://trac.clozure.com/ccl/ticket/1208 <http://trac.clozure.com/ccl/ticket/1208> (+) 20c/20d has known CLOS issues. (++1) I do not have access to them, so I cannot say for sure. The Hobbyist and Personal edition lack application delivery and image saving functionality, respectively. The tests put those features to the test and currently fail if they’re unavailable. (++2) causing `make test-lisp` to fail; This started with ASDF 3.1.7.5; 3.1.7.4 was fine. (+++) sb-debug:print-backtrace requires 1.1.5 or later, bundles require 1.1.13 or later Elias
On 8/22/16 Aug 22 -10:30 AM, Drew C wrote:
LispWorks: Professional edition of 6.1 (and presumably others) currently emit an unexpected warning(++2) (++2) causing `make test-lisp` to fail; This started with ASDF 3.1.7.5; 3.1.7.4 was fine.
Do you know what this warning is? If it's easy to pick off, I'd like to do so, but if it requires major effort, I'm willing to see 6.1 slip into unsupported status.
Best, r
On 22 Aug 2016, at 17:30, Drew C me@drewc.ca wrote:
Hey,
How does this differ from the "Monthly-or-so" tests that Quicklisp does with cl-test-grid? Is there anything beyond `make test-lisp`, or is this a simple "try to build the ASDF master branch on Linux/x64 and report if it fails"?
For example, I notice that they used sbcl-1.0.58 in the last test[1] . What issues did you have with those earlier versions that were'fixed' in 1.1.13? Is there a report of your testing available that I could look at beyond a quick email?
Beyond that, looks good!
Thanks,
Drew Crampsie
[1] https://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/ql/quicklisp-2016-06-28-diff.ht...
Dear Drew,
I’ve only now learnt of cl-test-grid. It looks like a great idea. And it’s an actual project: A concerted, automated effort. What I summed up in my e-mail was merely a cleanup of my notes that I’ve been collecting over the course of a few days or weeks, with a limited scope (Linux-only e.g.). Hence there are no reports beyond what my e-mail provides, I’m afraid.
The goals are, as Robert already mentioned, very different, too: I cared about ASDF here, whereas cl-test-grid appears to care about quicklisp-installable libraries. cl-test-grid will also end up testing ASDF indirectly, but an old version (2.x rather than 3.x), and in a less systematic fashion than the ASDF test suite (no targeted regression testing e.g.).
If you’re a developer, you might find both tests interesting. Maybe you’re working on a project that has a few dependencies and also needs a recent version of ASDF. How portable is your project then? That’s answered by these two tests. But my e-mail was primarily targeted at the developers of ASDF.
Elias
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Elias Pipping pipping.elias@icloud.com wrote:
Dear list,
I've been meaning to find out what lisp compilers/interpreters are effectively supported by current ASDF, to the point where they pass `make test-lisp` without a single (potentially harmless error), such as those stemming e.g. from unexpected warnings. I’ve now gotten around to a bit of testing. For future reference, on a recent Linux, with ASDF 3.1.7.7, the answer is as follows:
ABCL: 1.2.0 (2013-06-01) or later looks good(*) Allegro CL: 10.0 Express Edition looks good(**) CCL: 1.10 (2014-09-12) or later looks good(***) CLISP: 2.49 (2010-07-07) looks good; hg checkout segfaults in asdf-pathname-test.script CMUCL: 20e (2013-09-28) or later looks good(+) ECL: 16.0.0 (2015-08-28) or later looks good LispWorks: HobbyistDV/Professional/Enterprise edition of 7.0 (2015-05-05) would probably look good(++1) LispWorks: Professional edition of 6.1 (and presumably others) currently emit an unexpected warning(++2) MKCL: 1.1.9 hangs in test-try-refinding.script; git checkout looks good SBCL: 1.1.13 (2013-10-31) or later looks good(+++)
(*) sys::concatenate-fasls requires 1.2.0 or later (**) 9.0 can no longer be downloaded so that I could not test with earlier versions (***) 1.9 and earlier are broken on recent versions of linux, see http://trac.clozure.com/ccl/ticket/1208 (+) 20c/20d has known CLOS issues. (++1) I do not have access to them, so I cannot say for sure. The Hobbyist and Personal edition lack application delivery and image saving functionality, respectively. The tests put those features to the test and currently fail if they’re unavailable. (++2) causing `make test-lisp` to fail; This started with ASDF 3.1.7.5; 3.1.7.4 was fine. (+++) sb-debug:print-backtrace requires 1.1.5 or later, bundles require 1.1.13 or later
Great work! This table ought to be included in the index.html and/or the asdf manual.
I admit I forgot which CLOS issues CMUCL had; probably class redefinition issues.
If the LispWorks 6 issues can be easily fixed, it would be nice to do so: apparently, the personal edition is still 6.1.1 only, not 7.0. I don't think we should support LispWorks 5 or earlier, that seem not to be supported by LispWorks anymore. If you are the new UIOP maintainer (which you seem to be at the moment, but you might not want to own it going forward), then you should contact lisp-support@lispworks.com and request a license for testing, which in my experience they will happily provide and renew yearly.
PS: For Drew who inquired about cl-test-grid, it intentionally tests with many versions of SBCL, some of which use the antique ASDF 2.26 from Quicklisp, that can't build a lot of more recent systems. The latest SBCL doesn't sport the latest ASDF, but something like 3.1.5. Sad. The cl-test-grid author is very friendly to testing with recent versions of ASDF, and may or may not have some permanent platform that uses the latest ASDF release and/or the latest ASDF master in its list -- if not, we should ask him to add it (presumably with SBCL and/or CCL).
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org To seek God is to find him. To seek happiness is to miss it.
-
Drew C -
Elias Pipping -
Faré -
Robert Goldman