From: Juho S. <js...@ik...> - 2011-03-23 01:49:40
|
I'm planning on making a new SBCL release next Sunday. Any testing is welcome :-) -- Juho Snellman |
From: Jim W. <jw...@dr...> - 2011-03-23 15:12:08
|
Juho Snellman <js...@ik...> writes: > I'm planning on making a new SBCL release next Sunday. Any testing is > welcome :-) I'll post Sunos x86 and x86-64 builds when this is tagged. I can also throw together a darwin build if no one else is building one officially. This release will not have the threading build work I've been doing for SunOS/x86, but I hope to have something in for the next one. Current status is that SBCL on SunOS builds and works for x86 (not x86-64), but has the same condvar-related test failures as other sb-lutex ports. It's stable enough to run weblocks for development purposes, but I suspect the same issues would pop up under load. Thanks again, -- Jim Wise jw...@dr... |
From: Bruce O'N. <ec...@pc...> - 2011-03-23 15:40:06
|
Hi, I think that the non-threaded builds now fail. I'll try to get some time tonight or tomorrow morning to debug this. cheers bruce ----- Message d'origine ----- De: Juho Snellman <js...@ik...> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:49:33 +0100 Sujet: [Sbcl-devel] release freeze À: sbcl-devel Devel-list <sbc...@li...> I'm planning on making a new SBCL release next Sunday. Any testing is welcome :-) -- Juho Snellman |
From: Juho S. <js...@ik...> - 2011-03-24 12:46:26
|
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Bruce O'Neel <ec...@pc...> wrote: > > Hi, > > I think that the non-threaded builds now fail. I'll try to get some time tonight or tomorrow morning to debug this. Looks like sb-introspect doesn't build without threads, which should be an easy fix. But other than that everything works for me with x86-64. Did you notice anything else? -- Juho Snellman |
From: Cyrus H. <ch...@bo...> - 2011-03-24 18:27:08
|
I fixed this last night in 1.0.46.43, if we're talking about the same problem. Cyrus On Mar 24, 2011, at 5:46 AM, Juho Snellman wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Bruce O'Neel <ec...@pc...> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I think that the non-threaded builds now fail. I'll try to get some time tonight or tomorrow morning to debug this. > > Looks like sb-introspect doesn't build without threads, which should be an easy fix. But other than that everything works for me with x86-64. Did you notice anything else? > > -- > Juho Snellman > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the > growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses > are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software > be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker > today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar_______________________________________________ > Sbcl-devel mailing list > Sbc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-devel |
From: Bruce O'N. <ec...@pc...> - 2011-03-25 21:43:28
|
Hi, Yep, this fixed it, thanks very much! cheers bruce On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:26:59AM -0700, Cyrus Harmon wrote: > I fixed this last night in 1.0.46.43, if we're talking about the same problem. > > Cyrus > > On Mar 24, 2011, at 5:46 AM, Juho Snellman wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Bruce O'Neel <ec...@pc...> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I think that the non-threaded builds now fail. I'll try to get some time tonight or tomorrow morning to debug this. > > > > Looks like sb-introspect doesn't build without threads, which should be an easy fix. But other than that everything works for me with x86-64. Did you notice anything else? > > > > -- > > Juho Snellman > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the > > growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses > > are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software > > be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker > > today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar_______________________________________________ > > Sbcl-devel mailing list > > Sbc...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-devel > |
From: Josh E. <jo...@el...> - 2011-03-27 00:05:47
|
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 02:49:33AM +0100, Juho Snellman wrote: > I'm planning on making a new SBCL release next Sunday. Any testing is > welcome :-) Test output from 10.0.46.44 on MacOS X 10.5 on PowerPC: Status: Expected failure: float.pure.lisp / (SCALE-FLOAT-OVERFLOW BUG-372) Expected failure: float.pure.lisp / (ADDITION-OVERFLOW BUG-372) Failure: compiler.impure.lisp / REGRESSION-1.0.29.54 Expected failure: debug.impure.lisp / (UNDEFINED-FUNCTION BUG-346) Expected failure: debug.impure.lisp / (UNDEFINED-FUNCTION BUG-353) Failure: debug.impure.lisp / BUG-310175 Expected failure: dynamic-extent.impure.lisp / (NO-CONSING DX-RAW-INSTANCES) Failure: dynamic-extent.impure.lisp / (NO-CONSING HASH-TABLES) Expected failure: dynamic-extent.impure.lisp / HANDLER-CASE-BOGUS-COMPILER-NOTE Expected failure: dynamic-extent.impure.lisp / DX-COMPILER-NOTES Expected failure: dynamic-extent.impure.lisp / HANDLER-CASE-EATING-STACK Expected failure: dynamic-extent.impure.lisp / RECHECK-NESTED-DX-BUG Expected failure: dynamic-extent.impure.lisp / BUG-586105 Expected failure: packages.impure.lisp / USE-PACKAGE-CONFLICT-SET Expected failure: packages.impure.lisp / IMPORT-SINGLE-CONFLICT Failure: run-program.impure.lisp / (RUN-PROGRAM PTY-STREAM) test failed, expected 104 return code, got 1 I believe the compiler.impure.lisp failure is a known heisenbug in the test itself. I don't regularly build on PPC so I cant say much about the other failures. For comparison, here's test output from OpenBSD/macppc: Status: Expected failure: float.pure.lisp / (ADDITION-OVERFLOW BUG-372) Expected failure: debug.impure.lisp / (UNDEFINED-FUNCTION BUG-346) Expected failure: debug.impure.lisp / (UNDEFINED-FUNCTION BUG-353) Unexpected success: debug.impure.lisp / (TRACE ENCAPSULATE NIL) Unexpected success: debug.impure.lisp / (TRACE-RECURSIVE ENCAPSULATE NIL) Failure: debug.impure.lisp / BUG-310175 Expected failure: dynamic-extent.impure.lisp / (NO-CONSING DX-RAW-INSTANCES) Failure: dynamic-extent.impure.lisp / (NO-CONSING HASH-TABLES) Expected failure: dynamic-extent.impure.lisp / HANDLER-CASE-BOGUS-COMPILER-NOTE Expected failure: dynamic-extent.impure.lisp / DX-COMPILER-NOTES Expected failure: dynamic-extent.impure.lisp / HANDLER-CASE-EATING-STACK Expected failure: dynamic-extent.impure.lisp / RECHECK-NESTED-DX-BUG Expected failure: dynamic-extent.impure.lisp / BUG-586105 Expected failure: packages.impure.lisp / USE-PACKAGE-CONFLICT-SET Expected failure: packages.impure.lisp / IMPORT-SINGLE-CONFLICT test failed, expected 104 return code, got 1 The same two tests unexpectedly fail as on darwin. I don't know anything about the two unexpected successes, but I'll poke around a bit. If anyone is interested I have full logs of both of the above build and test runs available. |