From: Scott L. Burson on 3 Jun 2010 14:46 On Jun 3, 4:56 am, "Captain Obvious" <udode...(a)users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > DH> Regardless, I have a fundamental issue with merging the functionality > DH> of "make" with "load and execute". It is nice that they can be > DH> coordinated, but wrong to think tight coupling should be the default. > > Isn't that a fundamental issue of Common Lisp? It seems that way to me -- certainly, the way I've always used Lisp is with building and loading combined -- but I'm curious what alternative Daniel is imagining. (Maybe XCVB is headed in that direction?) Meanwhile, CO, any response to my original question? -- Scott
From: Scott L. Burson on 4 Jun 2010 08:59 On Jun 2, 5:25 pm, "Scott L. Burson" <g...(a)zeta-soft.com> wrote: > Ever since I started using ASDF I have been mildly bugged by redundant > recompilations: recompilations of fasls that are already up to date. > This problem doesn't seem to have gone away: I was just trying the new > ABCL (with ASDF 1.719) to see if it could run FSet, and every time I > restart ABCL and load FSet, ASDF recompiles several files, despite the > sources not having changed. > > I'll put together a proper bug report for the maintainers, but first > I'm curious, because I haven't heard anyone else complain about this: > does anyone else see this behavior? > > -- Scott Anyone else care to comment? Have you seen this? -- Scott
From: Alessio Stalla on 4 Jun 2010 13:33 On 4 Giu, 14:59, "Scott L. Burson" <g...(a)zeta-soft.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 5:25 pm, "Scott L. Burson" <g...(a)zeta-soft.com> wrote: > > > Ever since I started using ASDF I have been mildly bugged by redundant > > recompilations: recompilations of fasls that are already up to date. > > This problem doesn't seem to have gone away: I was just trying the new > > ABCL (with ASDF 1.719) to see if it could run FSet, and every time I > > restart ABCL and load FSet, ASDF recompiles several files, despite the > > sources not having changed. > > > I'll put together a proper bug report for the maintainers, but first > > I'm curious, because I haven't heard anyone else complain about this: > > does anyone else see this behavior? > > > -- Scott > > Anyone else care to comment? Have you seen this? Is this a problem you encounter with ASDF in general? Or only with ASDF on ABCL? I think it never occurred to me, but I don't use ASDF very much. Alessio
From: Captain Obvious on 4 Jun 2010 14:03 SLB> Meanwhile, CO, any response to my original question? Um, yes, I remember case when I've seen ASDF was repeatedly compiling one file. It turned out that it had modification time in future. ASDF uses file-write-date to check whether recompilation is needed -- it compute latest write-date of all input files and earliest write-date of ouput files. If output file has write-date earlier than one of files it depends on, then it needs recompilation. Here's how it looks like in code: (defmethod operation-done-p .... (flet ((earliest-out () (reduce #'min (mapcar #'safe-file-write-date out-files))) (latest-in () (reduce #'max (mapcar #'safe-file-write-date in-files)))) (>= (earliest-out) (latest-in)) This works as long as modification times as recorded in file system are sane. If there is any problem with it, it won't work. Likely causes are wrong system clocks, copying files from filesystems with erroneous clocks and stuff like that. I think you can easily debug this stuff yourself as ASDF's code is pretty easy. E.g. you can just trace functions like operation-done-p or even file-write-date and see if you can spot a problem.
From: Scott L. Burson on 4 Jun 2010 17:48 On Jun 4, 10:33 am, Alessio Stalla <alessiosta...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 Giu, 14:59, "Scott L. Burson" <g...(a)zeta-soft.com> wrote: > > > Anyone else care to comment? Have you seen this? > > Is this a problem you encounter with ASDF in general? Or only with > ASDF on ABCL? I think it never occurred to me, but I don't use ASDF > very much. In general. I haven't used ABCL before. -- Scott
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Simple hack to get $500 to your home. Next: Simple hack to get $500 to your home. |