;;; versions which break binary compatibility. But it certainly should
;;; be incremented for release versions which break binary
;;; compatibility.
-(def!constant +fasl-file-version+ 55)
+(def!constant +fasl-file-version+ 56)
;;; (record of versions before 2003 deleted in 2003-04-26/0.pre8.107 or so)
;;; 38: (2003-01-05) changed names of internal SORT machinery
;;; 39: (2003-02-20) in 0.7.12.1 a slot was added to
;;; on x86-64."
;;; 55: (2005-04-06) EXTERN-ALIEN-NAME logic moved from fixups to
;;; FIND-FOREIGN-SYMBOL-IN-TABLE &co.
+;;; 56: (2005-05-22) Something between 0.9.0.1 and 0.9.0.14. My money is
+;;; on 0.9.0.6 (MORE CASE CONSISTENCY).
;;; the conventional file extension for our fasl files
(declaim (type simple-string *fasl-file-type*))
;;; checkins which aren't released. (And occasionally for internal
;;; versions, especially for internal versions off the main CVS
;;; branch, it gets hairier, e.g. "0.pre7.14.flaky4.13".)
-"0.9.0.40"
+"0.9.0.41"