GNU bug report logs - #65592
[PATCH]: Update sbcl to 2.3.8

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 65592 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 65592 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH]: Update sbcl to 2.3.8
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 16:49:19 +0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Guix,

Please find the patch attached.  Thanks.


-- 
André A. Gomes
"You cannot even find the ruins..."

[0001-gnu-sbcl-Update-to-2.3.8.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 65592 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
To: André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 65592 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#65592] [PATCH]: Update sbcl to 2.3.8
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2023 13:32:50 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I applied a modified version of your patch (to remove the obsolete patch
from the sources) on the lisp-team branch.
When the CI machines have rebuilt the dependents, we'll merge the
lisp-team branch into the master branch.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #13 received at 65592-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
To: André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 65592-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#65592] [PATCH]: Update sbcl to 2.3.8
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2023 09:16:58 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

SBCL 2.3.8 didn't build on riscv64, so instead version 2.3.7 is used for
now. It has been merged in master at
4f35ff1275e05be31f5d41464ccf147e9dbfd016.
Let's close this issue and open a new one for a future update of SBCL
(maybe 2.3.9 will fix the build failure).

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #16 received at 65592-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
Cc: 65592-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#65592] [PATCH]: Update sbcl to 2.3.8
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 12:17:51 +0300

Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net> writes:

> SBCL 2.3.8 didn't build on riscv64, so instead version 2.3.7 is used for
> now. It has been merged in master at
> 4f35ff1275e05be31f5d41464ccf147e9dbfd016.
> Let's close this issue and open a new one for a future update of SBCL
> (maybe 2.3.9 will fix the build failure).

Hi Guillaume,

Just for future reference, is there a way for me to check whether a SBCL
builds on all platforms when sending a patch?  Thanks.


-- 
André A. Gomes
"You cannot even find the ruins..."

Message #19 received at 65592-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
To: André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 65592-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#65592] [PATCH]: Update sbcl to 2.3.8
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 09:03:27 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com> skribis:

> Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net> writes:
>
>> SBCL 2.3.8 didn't build on riscv64, so instead version 2.3.7 is used for
>> now. It has been merged in master at
>> 4f35ff1275e05be31f5d41464ccf147e9dbfd016.
>> Let's close this issue and open a new one for a future update of SBCL
>> (maybe 2.3.9 will fix the build failure).
>
> Hi Guillaume,
>
> Just for future reference, is there a way for me to check whether a SBCL
> builds on all platforms when sending a patch?  Thanks.

For x86_64, i686, aarch64, armhf and powerpc64le, you can check on
<https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/ISSUE-NUMBER>.

However so far the CI doesn't have builds for riscv64, because it
doesn't have riscv64 hardware. Efraim Flashner <efraim <at> flashner.co.il>
has a riscv64 board with Guix on it, and he is the one who tried
building SBCL 2.3.8 and saw the failure.

If you are using a Guix system, you could also add the
qemu-binfmt-service-type to your system definition, which gives the
possibility to build packages for some other architectures with:

  guix build -s riscv64-linux PACKAGE-NAME

Unfortunately, qemu-binfmt has difficulties running SBCL on foreign
architectures, and building SBCL for aarch64 or riscv64 on a x86_64
machine fails with an error about a missing tty or something like that.
However, trying the build with qemu-binfmt can still be useful, because
if compilation fails before getting to the tty error, it usually
indicates that the package has an issue on this architecture.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #22 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
Cc: André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com>,
 guix-patches <at> gnu.org, 65592-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#65592] [PATCH]: Update sbcl to 2.3.8
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 11:44:10 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net> writes:

> André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net> writes:
>>
>>> SBCL 2.3.8 didn't build on riscv64, so instead version 2.3.7 is used for
>>> now. It has been merged in master at
>>> 4f35ff1275e05be31f5d41464ccf147e9dbfd016.
>>> Let's close this issue and open a new one for a future update of SBCL
>>> (maybe 2.3.9 will fix the build failure).
>>
>> Hi Guillaume,
>>
>> Just for future reference, is there a way for me to check whether a SBCL
>> builds on all platforms when sending a patch?  Thanks.
>
> For x86_64, i686, aarch64, armhf and powerpc64le, you can check on
> <https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/ISSUE-NUMBER>.

Note that we're lacking sufficient powerpc64 hardware to do QA for that
architecture.

> However so far the CI doesn't have builds for riscv64, because it
> doesn't have riscv64 hardware. Efraim Flashner <efraim <at> flashner.co.il>
> has a riscv64 board with Guix on it, and he is the one who tried
> building SBCL 2.3.8 and saw the failure.

We do however have RiscV hardware connected to the bordeaux build farm,
I've got a machine and there's also a second connected. We probably need
at least one more machine to enable the system for QA though.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.