severity 296824 normal
retitle 296824 Please upload new version of sbcl to fix bug
tags 296824 + pending
thanks
Alan Shields wrote:
> The issue was that the fasls weren't recognized as incompatible. I put
> in the recompile-stale-fasls code and it thought everything was fine. I
> was given to believe this was because 0.8.19.29 was a prerelease
> version and thus the version number wasn't incremented for each change
> before release. I'm way out of my depth here, only trying to help as best I
> can.
>
> The fasls were from an asdf-install'd package, so I wouldn't expect
> those to be current, but I would expect them to be recognized as stale.
> Or is this the ass-end of an assumption?
Thanks for the additional information. Incompatible fasls from a
previous version of a lisp compile (stale fasls) are a problem with
all lisp compilers: allegro, lispworks, cmucl, clisp, and sbcl. As
time as gone on, lisp compilers have become better at recognizing
stale fasls and reporting them. But as this sbcl incident has shown,
sometimes incompatibilities are added but the fasl-version-number is
not incremented. So, while you assumption is rather reasonable these
days, it's not a very safe assumption.
Because your bug report was marked as grave ("package is not usable"),
I thought you were stating that the sbcl package itself did not work
rather than there were errors loading fasls created by previous
versions of sbcl.
I'm currently building a new version of sbcl to upload, so I've tag
the bug as pending.
--
Kevin Rosenberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
