Re: System compilation failure, CLPPCRE, ASDF, SBCL involved
- From: tar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Thomas A. Russ)
- Date: 28 Feb 2008 14:47:52 -0800
tim <TimJ@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:45:24 -0800, Thomas A. Russ wrote:
COMPILE-FILE also returns three values, with the 2nd and 3rd
corresponding to WARNING-P and FAILURE-P, so this could be what is
triggering the ASDF behavior.
I have noticed that SBCL sometimes returns t in failure-p, even when there
are only warnings and no Error messages, and an output file has been
generated OK. This might explain it.
Interestingly enough, the standard requires FAILURE-P to be T whenver
there are errors or warnings that are not style warnings. So any
warning that isn't a style warning is supposed to set FAILURE-P to T,
even if that is not what one would naively expect.
I suppose the rationale is that if there are non-style warnings, they
may indicate that the code COULD fail to operate correctly and that one
needs to be careful. But if a particular implementation is especially
zealous about producing warnings, then this may cause applications that
were designed with a different understanding of what a warning implies
to conclude that the code is broken.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
.
- References:
- System compilation failure, CLPPCRE, ASDF, SBCL involved
- From: Holger Schauer
- Re: System compilation failure, CLPPCRE, ASDF, SBCL involved
- From: Juho Snellman
- Re: System compilation failure, CLPPCRE, ASDF, SBCL involved
- From: Holger Schauer
- Re: System compilation failure, CLPPCRE, ASDF, SBCL involved
- From: Thomas A. Russ
- Re: System compilation failure, CLPPCRE, ASDF, SBCL involved
- From: tim
- System compilation failure, CLPPCRE, ASDF, SBCL involved
- Prev by Date: Re: Why Lisp?
- Next by Date: Re: Why Lisp?
- Previous by thread: Re: System compilation failure, CLPPCRE, ASDF, SBCL involved
- Next by thread: Re: System compilation failure, CLPPCRE, ASDF, SBCL involved
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|