I suppose you're talking about compute-action-stamp in plan.lisp.

Indeed, there is a bug:
When in ASDF 3.3 I swapped the timestamp meaning of NIL and T,
I failed to change the condition in missing-in from missing-out from
:unless s to :when (eq s t)

There ought to be tests for that.

(Not volunteering to do the hard work, sorry.)

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything
to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to
disregard the first lesson of economics.”  — Thomas Sowell

On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 12:52 PM Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> wrote:
>
> The following message was received to the mailing list and, for some reason, 
> discarded instead of held for moderation (if you want to submit emails to 
> asdf-devel, please subscribe; you can always unsubscribe later.)
>
> This certainly seems plausibly to be a bug. Please post it at GitLab and I 
> will have a look at it as time permits. A test case would be a real plus -- 
> I'm much more likely to get on this if I don't also have to create the test 
> case myself.
>
> ________________________________
>
> Hello,
>
> I may have discovered a bug in ASDF.
>
> In the function COMPUTE-ACTION-STAMP, first the IN-STAMPS and then the
> OUT-STAMPS are collected. When one of the last write dates are not
> available, T is returned by GET-FILE-STAMP, which is deemed infinitely
> old by TIMESTAMP<=.
>
> But suppose that all the IN-STAMPS and at least one of the OUT-STAMPS
> are not available, then LATEST-IN and EARLIEST-OUT are both T, and the
> wisest thing would probably be rebuild everything, but TIMESTAMP<=
> returns T so nothing is built.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Andrea Monaco

Reply via email to