Comment 22 for bug 1956852

I'm sorry about the confusion. Part of it was that we were troubleshooting with different versions of ECL (20.2.1 and 16.1.3) and SBCL (from git vs git + https://sourceforge.net/p/sbcl/sbcl/ci/75919da1).

To summarize, I was able to compile SBCL sbcl-2.2.0-106-g900d8b685 with ECL from their development branch using the following options:

sh make.sh --xc-host='path-to-dev-ecl/ecl --c-stack 16777217 --norc' --prefix=path-to-sbcl-install --with-android --without-gcc-tls

and this change to run-program.c (the only code change)

diff --git a/src/runtime/run-program.c b/src/runtime/run-program.c
index 929ac9914..fc48ebc40 100644
--- a/src/runtime/run-program.c
+++ b/src/runtime/run-program.c
@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ void closefrom_fallback(int lowfd)
 {
     int fd, maxfd;

-#ifdef SVR4
+#if defined(SVR4) || defined(LISP_FEATURE_ANDROID)
     maxfd = sysconf(_SC_OPEN_MAX)-1;
 #else
     maxfd = getdtablesize()-1;

The only tests that failed were those related to sb:posix.

Next, I can try your suggestions about adding #+/- around the failing POSIX tests.
Hope this clears the picture of the state of things.