Faré wrote:
> When I try to reproduce compilation of Ilya's system (renaming it
> undef-var, to prevent any clash) using
> sbcl-1.2.3.62-989a1d6-linux-x64, it "works" exactly as expected:
>
> 1- if deferred warnings are disabled (the default), then the
> compilation succeeds, and I get an undefine
When I try to reproduce compilation of Ilya's system (renaming it
undef-var, to prevent any clash) using
sbcl-1.2.3.62-989a1d6-linux-x64, it "works" exactly as expected:
1- if deferred warnings are disabled (the default), then the
compilation succeeds, and I get an undefined variable warning at th
I figured out my problem: my code was not calling
(enable-deferred-warnings-check).
Sorry for the noise. I was not even aware of
ENABLE-DEFERRED-WARNINGS-CHECK. What is the reason for suppressing
defer-able warnings by default? As far as I understand the distinction between
normal and deferred war
"Robert P. Goldman" writes:
> I cannot replicate this, but this may be a new behavior introduced by
> recent changes to SBCL, and I'm not on the latest release yet.
Very strange. I can reproduce the problem with all the SBCL versions I
have: 1.1.4, 1.1.18, 1.2.4. SBCL 1.2.4 includes the latest ve
Ilya Perminov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ASDF does not raise an error, when the SBCL compiler produces
> warnings (e.g. "undefined variable", "undefined function").
> Example:
> test.asd =
> (defsystem :test
> :version "1.0"
> :components ((:file "test")))
> test.lisp
Hi,
ASDF does not raise an error, when the SBCL compiler produces
warnings (e.g. "undefined variable", "undefined function").
Example:
test.asd =
(defsystem :test
:version "1.0"
:components ((:file "test")))
test.lisp
(defun foo ()
(+ a b))
==
