From: Douglas P. <dg...@ma...> - 2006-01-18 06:24:46
|
On 2006 Jan 17, at 10:55 AM, Sam Steingold wrote: >> * Doug Philips <qtbh@znp.pbz> [2006-01-17 10:05:25 -0500]: >> Assuming everything goes as planned, I should be able to grab a 2.36 >> tree tonight. We have four scenarios to test: 2.36 fill 0, 2.36 fill >> 0xFF, 2.37 fill 0, 2.37 fill 0xFF. > > Thanks. Results so far: "out of the box" 2.36 passes its socket tests. Adding FILL0 (and calls to it) in 2.36 makes for no change, the tests all pass either way. Changing FILL0 to fill with 0xFF causes no change in the 2.36 socket tests. Changing FILL0 to fill with 0xFF causes 30 errors in the 2.37 test. Running the 2.37 socket test under 2.36 (0 and FF) causes a segmentation fault: (PROGN (SETQ *SERVER* (SOCKET-SERVER 9090) *SOCKET-1* (SOCKET-CONNECT 9090 "localhost" :TIMEOUT 0 :BUFFERED NIL) *SOCKET-2* (SOCKET-ACCEPT *SERVER* :BUFFERED NIL)) (WRITE-CHAR #\a *SOCKET-1*)) EQL-OK: #\a (LISTP (SHOW (LIST (MULTIPLE-VALUE-LIST (SOCKET-STREAM-LOCAL *SOCKET-1*)) (MULTIPLE-VALUE-LIST (SOCKET-STREAM-PEER *SOCKET-1*)) (MULTIPLE-VALUE-LIST (SOCKET-STREAM-LOCAL *SOCKET-2*)) (MULTIPLE- VALUE-LIST (SOCKET-STREAM-PEER *SOCKET-2*))) :PRETTY T)) make: *** [socket2.erg] Segmentation fault make: *** Deleting file `socket2.erg' When I get over my head cold, I'll investigate further. diff on the 2.36 and 2.37 socket test was annoyingly filled with uninteresting changes, but I haven't looked more deeply. --Doug |