From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2010-02-24 11:34:17
|
Hi, Please consider the trunk frozen for sbcl-1.0.36. I confess that there is one particular bug, lp#511072, which seems to be biting quite a number of people; it seems easy to trigger, particularly in IDEs implemented using threads, and its consequences are painful: I'd take a reviewed patch to work around the issue. Best, Christophe |
From: Paul K. <pv...@pv...> - 2010-02-24 13:09:39
|
On 2010-02-24, at 6:34 AM, Christophe Rhodes wrote: > Please consider the trunk frozen for sbcl-1.0.36. I confess that there > is one particular bug, lp#511072, which seems to be biting quite a > number of people; it seems easy to trigger, particularly in IDEs > implemented using threads If Nikodemus could list the scenarios the current locking mechanism protects against, it might be easier to come up with a finer-grained locking scheme. Paul Khuong |
From: Harald Hanche-O. <ha...@ma...> - 2010-02-25 21:56:44
|
+ Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...>: > Please consider the trunk frozen for sbcl-1.0.36. Builds and tests ok on osx 10.5 / intel. But these were a novelty: Unexpected success: debug.impure.lisp / (UNDEFINED-FUNCTION BUG-346) Unexpected success: debug.impure.lisp / (BACKTRACE MISC) I'd like to see some more of those, please. 8-) - Harald |
From: Harald Hanche-O. <ha...@ma...> - 2010-02-25 21:58:34
|
+ Harald Hanche-Olsen <ha...@ma...>: > Builds and tests ok on osx 10.5 / intel. But these were a novelty: > > Unexpected success: debug.impure.lisp / (UNDEFINED-FUNCTION BUG-346) > Unexpected success: debug.impure.lisp / (BACKTRACE MISC) > > I'd like to see some more of those, please. 8-) Oooh -- I missed these two: Unexpected success: debug.impure.lisp / (DIVIDE-BY-ZERO BUG-346) Unexpected success: debug.impure.lisp / (DIVIDE-BY-ZERO BUG-356) Maybe I should withdraw my wish for more. It gets to be too much. - Harald |
From: Paul K. <pv...@pv...> - 2010-02-26 01:29:10
|
On 2010-02-25, at 4:58 PM, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote: > + Harald Hanche-Olsen <ha...@ma...>: > >> Builds and tests ok on osx 10.5 / intel. But these were a novelty: >> >> Unexpected success: debug.impure.lisp / (UNDEFINED-FUNCTION BUG-346) >> Unexpected success: debug.impure.lisp / (BACKTRACE MISC) >> >> I'd like to see some more of those, please. 8-) > > Oooh -- I missed these two: > > Unexpected success: debug.impure.lisp / (DIVIDE-BY-ZERO BUG-346) > Unexpected success: debug.impure.lisp / (DIVIDE-BY-ZERO BUG-356) They're pretty much expected since Alastair's backtrace patch. I'll see if I can empty some of my queue and bring the test definitions up to date. Paul Khuong |
From: Martin C. <cra...@co...> - 2010-02-25 22:41:15
|
Christophe Rhodes wrote on Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:34:06AM +0000: > Hi, > > Please consider the trunk frozen for sbcl-1.0.36. I confess that there > is one particular bug, lp#511072, which seems to be biting quite a > number of people; it seems easy to trigger, particularly in IDEs > implemented using threads, and its consequences are painful: I'd take a > reviewed patch to work around the issue. Looks fine here, both speed and regressions. Don't care about the bug, going back to ilisp anyway :-) Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cra...@co...> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ FreeBSD - where you want to go, today. http://www.freebsd.org/ |
From: Glenn T. <gt...@um...> - 2010-02-26 03:10:11
|
Long time lurker. I ran the tests on MacOSX 10.6.2 (Snow Leopard). If I don't enable :SB-THREADS then I also get "unexpected success" messages . However, with threading *enabled* I get: Finished running tests. Status: Expected failure: float.pure.lisp / (SCALE-FLOAT-OVERFLOW BUG-372) Expected failure: float.pure.lisp / (ADDITION-OVERFLOW BUG-372) Expected failure: threads.pure.lisp / WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS+CONDITION-WAIT Expected failure: callback.impure.lisp / UNDERFLOW-DETECTION Invalid exit status: clos-add-remove-method.impure.lisp Invalid exit status: clos-cache.impure.lisp Invalid exit status: clos-interrupts.impure.lisp Invalid exit status: compare-and-swap.impure.lisp Invalid exit status: debug.impure.lisp Invalid exit status: gc.impure.lisp Invalid exit status: hash.impure.lisp Expected failure: packages.impure.lisp / USE-PACKAGE-CONFLICT-SET Expected failure: packages.impure.lisp / IMPORT-SINGLE-CONFLICT Invalid exit status: profile.impure.lisp Invalid exit status: threads.impure.lisp Invalid exit status: timer.impure.lisp test failed, expected 104 return code, got 1 Just to verify I rebuilt *without* threads enabled and re-ran the tests. The results are: Finished running tests. Status: Expected failure: float.pure.lisp / (SCALE-FLOAT-OVERFLOW BUG-372) Expected failure: float.pure.lisp / (ADDITION-OVERFLOW BUG-372) Expected failure: callback.impure.lisp / UNDERFLOW-DETECTION Unexpected success: debug.impure.lisp / (UNDEFINED-FUNCTION BUG-346) Expected failure: debug.impure.lisp / (UNDEFINED-FUNCTION BUG-353) Unexpected success: debug.impure.lisp / (DIVIDE-BY-ZERO BUG-346) Unexpected success: debug.impure.lisp / (DIVIDE-BY-ZERO BUG-356) Expected failure: debug.impure.lisp / (THROW NO-SUCH-TAG) Unexpected success: debug.impure.lisp / (BACKTRACE MISC) Expected failure: packages.impure.lisp / USE-PACKAGE-CONFLICT-SET Expected failure: packages.impure.lisp / IMPORT-SINGLE-CONFLICT ok //apparent success (reached end of run-tests.sh normally) Are the failures in the first run expected if threads are enabled on MacOSX? Thanks, Glenn V. Glenn Tarcea gt...@um... |
From: Paul K. <pv...@pv...> - 2010-02-26 03:20:31
|
On 2010-02-25, at 10:10 PM, Glenn Tarcea wrote: > Long time lurker. I ran the tests on MacOSX 10.6.2 (Snow Leopard). If I don't enable :SB-THREADS then I also get "unexpected success" messages . However, with threading *enabled* I get: > > Finished running tests. > Status: > Expected failure: float.pure.lisp / (SCALE-FLOAT-OVERFLOW BUG-372) > Expected failure: float.pure.lisp / (ADDITION-OVERFLOW BUG-372) > Expected failure: threads.pure.lisp / WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS+CONDITION-WAIT > Expected failure: callback.impure.lisp / UNDERFLOW-DETECTION > Invalid exit status: clos-add-remove-method.impure.lisp > Invalid exit status: clos-cache.impure.lisp > Invalid exit status: clos-interrupts.impure.lisp > Invalid exit status: compare-and-swap.impure.lisp > Invalid exit status: debug.impure.lisp > Invalid exit status: gc.impure.lisp > Invalid exit status: hash.impure.lisp > Expected failure: packages.impure.lisp / USE-PACKAGE-CONFLICT-SET > Expected failure: packages.impure.lisp / IMPORT-SINGLE-CONFLICT > Invalid exit status: profile.impure.lisp > Invalid exit status: threads.impure.lisp > Invalid exit status: timer.impure.lisp > test failed, expected 104 return code, got 1 [...] > Are the failures in the first run expected if threads are enabled on MacOSX? Somewhat, yes. Threads are known to be (relatively... the tests are more stressful than most real world usage) unstable on OS X, and there's a snowball effect on failures. You could probably run most of the test files with "Invalid exit status" successfully, on their own. Paul Khuong |