Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

02.03.2018, 21:05, "Robert Goldman" : >> You might be interested to know that ACL binds *readtable* on startup >> to an unmodifieble readtable >> (which is a violation of CLHS http://clhs.lisp.se/Body/02_aac.htm : >> "The initial readtable is distinct from the standard readtable. It is >> perm

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

17.03.2018, 21:52, "Robert Goldman" : > Thank you very much, Anton. Question: is the inner-conditional-test > failure on SBCL 1.3.21 not a regression? Not a regression. Heap Exhausted often happens on SBCL for that library: https://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/library/inner-conditional.

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Robert Goldman wrote: > Thank you very much, Anton. Question: is the inner-conditional-test failure > on SBCL 1.3.21 not a regression? I just loaded this system and tested it on > my mac with SBCL 1.4.3, and it worked fine, so I'm inclined to treat this is > not

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

Thank you very much, Anton. Question: is the inner-conditional-test failure on SBCL 1.3.21 not a regression? I just loaded this system and tested it on my mac with SBCL 1.4.3, and it worked fine, so I'm inclined to treat this is not a problem. Also, the inner conditional system has a readme

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

Yez, it is 3.3.1.717.03.2018, 17:38, "Robert P. Goldman" :Sorry. That was meant to be "master," not matter.Sent from my iPad On Mar 17, 2018, at 09:36, Robert P. Goldman wrote: Just to be clear: this is matter, right? It's not one of the syntax control branches? Sent from my iP

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

Sorry. That was meant to be "master," not matter. Sent from my iPad > On Mar 17, 2018, at 09:36, Robert P. Goldman wrote: > > Just to be clear: this is matter, right? It's not one of the syntax control > branches? > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Mar 17, 2018, at 07:51, Anton Vodonosov wrote:

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

Just to be clear: this is matter, right? It's not one of the syntax control branches? Sent from my iPad > On Mar 17, 2018, at 07:51, Anton Vodonosov wrote: > > Results for these lisps: > > abcl-1.5.0-fasl43-linux-x86 > ccl-1.10-r16196-f96-linux-x86 > ccl-1.11-r16635-f96-linux-x86 > ccl-1.9-r1

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

Results for these lisps: abcl-1.5.0-fasl43-linux-x86 ccl-1.10-r16196-f96-linux-x86 ccl-1.11-r16635-f96-linux-x86 ccl-1.9-r15756-f96-linux-x86 clisp-2.49-unix-x86 ecl-16.1.2-unknown-linux-x86-bytecode ecl-16.1.2-unknown-linux-x86-lisp-to-c sbcl-1.1.16-linux-x86 sbcl-1.3.21-linux-x86 show no regres

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

I've started tests for 3.3.1.7 11.03.2018, 06:11, "Faré" : > Dear Anton, > > can you try your test suite again against 3.3.1.7 ? I think we're > mostly ready to release 3.3.2 this time, with its many bugs fixes (and > bug fix fixes). > > Can you also try the branch made by Robert for syntax-contro

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

Dear Anton, can you try your test suite again against 3.3.1.7 ? I think we're mostly ready to release 3.3.2 this time, with its many bugs fixes (and bug fix fixes). Can you also try the branch made by Robert for syntax-control + a copy of the standard readtable as default? —♯ƒ • François-René ÐV

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Robert Goldman wrote: > So as I see it we have three options for the *shared-readtable* > > Your original option -- the "initial-ish" readtable (since we can't control > when ASDF is loaded) Usually ASDF is loaded before any significant other software is. If the use

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

On 1 Mar 2018, at 21:45, Faré wrote: You might be interested to know that ACL binds *readtable* on startup to an unmodifieble readtable (which is a violation of CLHS http://clhs.lisp.se/Body/02_aac.htm : "The initial readtable is distinct from the standard readtable. It is permissible for a co

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

>> There is no batch loading, each test is run in a fresh CL process. >> > Interesting. The memory load might still be sensitive to compilation > order, if you reuse fasls shared with previous builds versus rebuild > new ones. it can help on SBCL to insert (sb-ext:gc :full t) to a few key places,

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

>> Maybe it's an artefact of SBCL using too much memory *while compiling* >> and would go away if you used e.g. POIU to compile inside forks. > > How? > "Just" load POIU right after you load ASDF, and before you load anything else. https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/qitab/poiu > The test order is alph

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

02.03.2018, 05:33, "Faré" : >>>  Often failures in cl-test-grid are "just" the result of using too >>>  little memory, >> >>  not little memory, but SBCL's conservative (i.e. imprecise) garbage >>  collection - it doesn't always recognize that an object is a garbage. >> >>  I saw cases where CCL

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

On 1 Mar 2018, at 20:33, Faré wrote: > PS: The newer test results look good. I'd like to see the results with > the syntax-control branch, though. There also are a few minor bug > fixes in the pipe that mean we'll have to re-test before release, > anyway. Concur...

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

>> Often failures in cl-test-grid are "just" the result of using too >> little memory, > > not little memory, but SBCL's conservative (i.e. imprecise) garbage > collection - it doesn't always recognize that an object is a garbage. > > I saw cases where CCL compiles a project under a 100MB heap, > w

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

I updated the report with the rest of the results. The lisps tested: abcl-1.5.0-fasl43-linux-x86 acl-10.0-linux-x86 acl-10.0m-linux-x86 acl-10.0ms-linux-x86 acl-10.0s-linux-x86 ccl-1.10-r16196-f96-linux-x86 ccl-1.11-r16635-f96-linux-x86 ccl-1.9-r15756-f96-linux-x86 clisp-2.49-unix-x86 ecl-16.1.2-u

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

16.02.2018, 22:02, "Faré" : > > Often failures in cl-test-grid are "just" the result of using too > little memory, not little memory, but SBCL's conservative (i.e. imprecise) garbage collection - it doesn't always recognize that an object is a garbage. I saw cases where CCL compiles a project

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

I'm reviewing the tests now. clisp I don't care about: as far as I'm concerned, 2.49 is dead, and I'm going to ignore clisp until there's a new release. ECL seems like you are saying that lisp-executable is simply incompatible with the new ASDF, so we can ignore that. The ACL failure on typ

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

Anton, thanks a lot for the test! asdf 3.3.1.3 looks good to go. Robert, I had no trouble loading clws or lime with clisp, cl-rrt or cl-sat.minisat.test or inner-conditional-test with sbcl (using asdf 3.3.1.3 from master). The ecl failures I could reproduce, but I'm not worried, as lisp-executa

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

Thanks for sending that. Had a quick look. One nice thing is that there's a very limited number of regressions. I'll look at those when I can. Faré: I didn't believe it was possible to downgrade ASDF, but we see this here in a couple of cases for ECL. ECL is trying to reload "prebuilt-asd

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

Robert, what delay are you apologizing for? I'm aware only of the delay from my side. :) The results for ASDF 3.3.1.3: https://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/asdf/asdf-diff-72.htmlLisps tested so far: abcl-1.5.0-fasl43-linux-x86acl-10.0s-linux-x86ccl-1.11-r16635-f96-linux-x86clisp-2.49-unix-x

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

OK, as I said, sorry about the delay. Anton, in place of Fare's #3 below, will you please just test what's in the `syntax-control-based-on-standard-syntax` branch? The comparison between 2 and 3 will tell us to what extent it's an issue to lock in standard syntax instead of whatever happens t

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

I'll get you a branch with the other setting for the syntax control, so you can just test with that instead of having to modify anything yourself. I'll get it pushed sometime tomorrow. Sorry for the delay. Sent from my iPad > On Feb 13, 2018, at 20:15, Anton Vodonosov wrote: > > Faré, hello.

Re: Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

Faré, hello. Sorry for replying so long - I'm almost paralyzed by too many things I need to deal with currently. I've started tests for the following commit. Will follow-up with the results. commit 2a5bc3bece8f97fdf64dc73a4e0544a55ae38f9d Author: Robert P. Goldman Date: Tue Jan 16 16:20:15 2

Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?

Dear Anton, can you run the below tests, in order or priority? 1- Can you test what is currently in master, a.k.a. 3.3.1.3, as a release candidate for 3.3.2? It has been too long since 3.3.1 was released with several bugs that have impacted Quicklisp users. 2- Can you test what is currently in t