Menu
▾
▴
gobo-eiffel-develop — Development discussions
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(80) |
Jun
(71) |
Jul
(34) |
Aug
(58) |
Sep
|
Oct
(220) |
Nov
(146) |
Dec
(36) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 |
Jan
(28) |
Feb
(152) |
Mar
(293) |
Apr
(213) |
May
(158) |
Jun
(96) |
Jul
(78) |
Aug
(39) |
Sep
(169) |
Oct
(128) |
Nov
(83) |
Dec
(149) |
| 2003 |
Jan
(155) |
Feb
(14) |
Mar
(60) |
Apr
(86) |
May
(92) |
Jun
(109) |
Jul
(25) |
Aug
(44) |
Sep
(10) |
Oct
(39) |
Nov
(37) |
Dec
(128) |
| 2004 |
Jan
(71) |
Feb
(199) |
Mar
(192) |
Apr
(360) |
May
(93) |
Jun
(75) |
Jul
(51) |
Aug
(195) |
Sep
(390) |
Oct
(186) |
Nov
(173) |
Dec
(331) |
| 2005 |
Jan
(102) |
Feb
(154) |
Mar
(160) |
Apr
(88) |
May
(79) |
Jun
(78) |
Jul
(126) |
Aug
(94) |
Sep
(110) |
Oct
(187) |
Nov
(188) |
Dec
(31) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(12) |
Feb
(40) |
Mar
(123) |
Apr
(102) |
May
(62) |
Jun
(36) |
Jul
(19) |
Aug
(31) |
Sep
(59) |
Oct
(67) |
Nov
(57) |
Dec
(35) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(153) |
Feb
(53) |
Mar
(27) |
Apr
(11) |
May
(49) |
Jun
(3) |
Jul
(56) |
Aug
(58) |
Sep
(30) |
Oct
(57) |
Nov
(47) |
Dec
(155) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(71) |
Feb
(68) |
Mar
(79) |
Apr
(72) |
May
(82) |
Jun
(10) |
Jul
(19) |
Aug
(25) |
Sep
(17) |
Oct
(10) |
Nov
(32) |
Dec
(9) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(26) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(12) |
May
(16) |
Jun
(7) |
Jul
(12) |
Aug
(22) |
Sep
(21) |
Oct
|
Nov
(7) |
Dec
|
| 2010 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
(5) |
Jun
(5) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(4) |
Oct
(2) |
Nov
|
Dec
(6) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
(8) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2012 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(8) |
Jun
|
Jul
(3) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2013 |
Jan
|
Feb
(11) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(4) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2014 |
Jan
(5) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(3) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(3) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(1) |
| 2015 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(6) |
| 2016 |
Jan
(8) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(3) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(3) |
Dec
|
| 2017 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(1) |
| 2018 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
(4) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(4) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2021 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(2) |
| 2022 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(2) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2023 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Colin P. A. <co...@co...> - 2007-11-02 15:03:09
|
>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bezault <er...@go...> writes:
Eric> The other errors only show up when running test/precomp.
Eric> Just run 'geant test_debug_ge' in this directory.
OK - I'll take a look
--
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire
|
|
From: Eric B. <er...@go...> - 2007-11-02 14:53:23
|
Colin Paul Adams wrote: >>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bezault <er...@go...> writes: > > Eric> Colin Paul Adams wrote: > >>>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bezault <er...@go...> writes: > >> > >> >> I am afraid as to what the state of my local repository is > >> >> compared with yours. Can this wait until tomorrow? > > I updated my prisitine copy of Gobo, and that too passes the xpath > tests. It's because I already fixed it yesterday. > So I think your copy must be out of sync with the > repository. Did you try test/precomp? Either that, or use an ECf file that contains all clusters and you should see the compilation errors in the XM_ classes. PS: I'm sorry I cannot answer promptly my emails. I have an internet connection problem today, and my ISP is having a hard time fixing it (not fixed yet). -- Eric Bezault mailto:er...@go... http://www.gobosoft.com |
|
From: Eric B. <er...@go...> - 2007-11-02 14:53:23
|
Colin Paul Adams wrote: >>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bezault <er...@go...> writes: > > Eric> Colin Paul Adams wrote: > >>>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bezault <er...@go...> writes: > >> > >> >> I am afraid as to what the state of my local repository is > >> >> compared with yours. Can this wait until tomorrow? > >> > Eric> I guess that I have no choice because some code does not > Eric> even compile ;-( > >> > Eric> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [VDRS-1] class > Eric> XM_XPATH_LAST_POSITION_FINDER (19,29): > Eric> `as_last_position_finder' is not the final name of a feature > >> > >> I didn't pay attention to this earlier today - but it means > >> there is definitely a problem with the repository - this class > >> shouldn't exist anymore. > > Eric> And what about the other two? > > After removing the repeated call to `initialize_special_properties', > all the xpath tests passs here (ise 6.0). Me too. > So we have a difference in our repositories The other errors only show up when running test/precomp. Just run 'geant test_debug_ge' in this directory. -- Eric Bezault mailto:er...@go... http://www.gobosoft.com |
|
From: Colin P. A. <co...@co...> - 2007-11-02 13:41:59
|
>>>>> "Colin" =3D=3D Colin Paul Adams <co...@co...> writes:
>>>>> "Colin" =3D=3D Colin Paul Adams <co...@co...> writes:
Colin> But on the XSLT tests, I'm getting:
Colin> Compiling C code in C9 In file included from
Colin> big_file_C9_c.c:30: in273.c:2865:1: warning: integer
Colin> constant is so large that it is unsigned In file included
Colin> from big_file_C9_c.c:30: in273.c: In function =81eFbyq6jo=81f:
Colin> in273.c:2865: warning: this decimal constant is unsigned
Colin> only in ISO C90 {standard input}: Assembler messages:
Colin> {standard input}:820975: Warning: end of file not at end of
Colin> a line; newline inserted gcc: Internal error: Killed
Colin> (program cc1) Please submit a full bug report. See
Colin> <URL:http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla> for instructions.
Colin> Internal error: Killed (program cc1) Please submit a full
Colin> bug report. See <URL:http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla>
Colin> for instructions. make[1]: *** [big_file_C12_c.o] Error 1
Colin> make: *** [C12/Cobj12.o] Error 2 make: *** Waiting for
Colin> unfinished jobs.... make: *** [C11/Cobj11.o] Error 2
Colin> which isn't good (that's with ISE 6.0 - I'm going to try
Colin> with gec now).
Colin> The gec tests work.
Colin> So this is the ISE problem with gcc 4.0 I presume. I think
Colin> that's fixed in 6.1,
No - the problem occurs with 6.1 too.
--=20
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire
|
|
From: Colin P. A. <co...@co...> - 2007-11-02 12:45:30
|
>>>>> "Colin" =3D=3D Colin Paul Adams <co...@co...> writes:
Colin> But on the XSLT tests, I'm getting:
Colin> Compiling C code in C9 In file included from
Colin> big_file_C9_c.c:30: in273.c:2865:1: warning: integer
Colin> constant is so large that it is unsigned In file included
Colin> from big_file_C9_c.c:30: in273.c: In function =81eFbyq6jo=81f:
Colin> in273.c:2865: warning: this decimal constant is unsigned
Colin> only in ISO C90 {standard input}: Assembler messages:
Colin> {standard input}:820975: Warning: end of file not at end of
Colin> a line; newline inserted gcc: Internal error: Killed
Colin> (program cc1) Please submit a full bug report. See
Colin> <URL:http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla> for instructions.
Colin> Internal error: Killed (program cc1) Please submit a full
Colin> bug report. See <URL:http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla>
Colin> for instructions. make[1]: *** [big_file_C12_c.o] Error 1
Colin> make: *** [C12/Cobj12.o] Error 2 make: *** Waiting for
Colin> unfinished jobs.... make: *** [C11/Cobj11.o] Error 2
Colin> which isn't good (that's with ISE 6.0 - I'm going to try
Colin> with gec now).
The gec tests work.
So this is the ISE problem with gcc 4.0 I presume. I think that's
fixed in 6.1, but that's no good to use if Gobo 3.7 is supporting 5.7
and 6.0.
--=20
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire
|
|
From: Colin P. A. <co...@co...> - 2007-11-02 12:09:13
|
>>>>> "Colin" == Colin Paul Adams <co...@co...> writes:
>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bezault <er...@go...> writes:
Eric> Colin Paul Adams wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bezault <er...@go...> writes:
>>>
>>> >> I am afraid as to what the state of my local repository is
>>> >> compared with yours. Can this wait until tomorrow?
Colin> I updated my prisitine copy of Gobo, and that too passes
Colin> the xpath tests. So I think your copy must be out of sync
Colin> with the repository. Can you try on a fresh checkout?
But on the XSLT tests, I'm getting:
Compiling C code in C9
In file included from big_file_C9_c.c:30:
in273.c:2865:1: warning: integer constant is so large that it is unsigned
In file included from big_file_C9_c.c:30:
in273.c: In function $(B!F(BFbyq6jo$(B!G(B:
in273.c:2865: warning: this decimal constant is unsigned only in ISO C90
{standard input}: Assembler messages:
{standard input}:820975: Warning: end of file not at end of a line; newline inserted
gcc: Internal error: Killed (program cc1)
Please submit a full bug report.
See <URL:http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla> for instructions.
Internal error: Killed (program cc1)
Please submit a full bug report.
See <URL:http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla> for instructions.
make[1]: *** [big_file_C12_c.o] Error 1
make: *** [C12/Cobj12.o] Error 2
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make: *** [C11/Cobj11.o] Error 2
which isn't good (that's with ISE 6.0 - I'm going to try with gec now).
--
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire
|
|
From: Colin P. A. <co...@co...> - 2007-11-02 08:15:11
|
>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bezault <er...@go...> writes:
Eric> Colin Paul Adams wrote:
>>>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bezault <er...@go...> writes:
>>
>> >> I am afraid as to what the state of my local repository is
>> >> compared with yours. Can this wait until tomorrow?
I updated my prisitine copy of Gobo, and that too passes the xpath
tests. So I think your copy must be out of sync with the
repository. Can you try on a fresh checkout?
--
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire
|
|
From: Eric B. <er...@go...> - 2007-11-01 23:08:23
|
Colin Paul Adams wrote: >>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bezault <er...@go...> writes: > > >> I am afraid as to what the state of my local repository is > >> compared with yours. Can this wait until tomorrow? > > Eric> I guess that I have no choice because some code does not > Eric> even compile ;-( > > Eric> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [VDRS-1] class > Eric> XM_XPATH_LAST_POSITION_FINDER (19,29): > Eric> `as_last_position_finder' is not the final name of a feature > > I didn't pay attention to this earlier today - but it means there is > definitely a problem with the repository - this class shouldn't exist anymore. And what about the other two? -- Eric Bezault mailto:er...@go... http://www.gobosoft.com |
|
From: Bernd S. <ber...@in...> - 2007-11-01 16:08:42
|
(resent to the list) On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:52:21 +0100, Eric Bezault <er...@go...> wrote: > Do you have a config file for MinGW that I could add to > $GOBO/tool/gec/config/c? MinGW is just a port of gcc to Windows. So, it has to be aware that we are working on the windows platform (paths, includes etc), but from the accepted syntax and command-line options, it behaves like 'gcc'. Even the binary is 'gcc.exe'. I do not know if we really need an extra config file there. Until now, it does not seem necessary and using "bootstrap.bat gcc ge" works fine. But I have to admit that I have no tested it thoroughly (I am just running the tests, and will report any error - but there are no so far). I think we should try to see how far we can go by treating 'gcc' and 'mingw' the same on Windows and Linux. If we see problems, we can still add an how cfg file. Bernd |
|
From: Bernd S. <ber...@in...> - 2007-11-01 16:08:21
|
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:01:07 +0100, Eric Bezault <er...@go...> wrote: > Bernd Schoeller wrote: >> - The help text of the .bat file under windows prints ugly " marks. >> This can be avoided by removing the quotes from the echo statements, >> and instead escaping <, > and | by ^, like this: >> echo usage: bootstrap.bat [-v][--delivery] ^<c_compiler^> >> ^<eiffel_compiler^> >> echo c_compiler: msc ^| lcc-win32 ^| bcc ^| gcc ^| cc ^| icc ^| tcc >> ^| no_c >> echo eiffel_compiler: ge ^| ise ^| se > > Fixed. > > Is there the same problem for the .sh files? No, echo "foo" under Unix prints foo, not "foo". The quotes are interpreted by the shell. Everything is fine here. Bernd |
|
From: Eric B. <er...@go...> - 2007-11-01 16:01:11
|
Bernd Schoeller wrote: > - The help text of the .bat file under windows prints ugly " marks. This > can be avoided by removing the quotes from the echo statements, and > instead escaping <, > and | by ^, like this: > > echo usage: bootstrap.bat [-v][--delivery] ^<c_compiler^> > ^<eiffel_compiler^> > echo c_compiler: msc ^| lcc-win32 ^| bcc ^| gcc ^| cc ^| icc ^| tcc ^| > no_c > echo eiffel_compiler: ge ^| ise ^| se Fixed. Is there the same problem for the .sh files? -- Eric Bezault mailto:er...@go... http://www.gobosoft.com |
|
From: Eric B. <er...@go...> - 2007-11-01 15:52:25
|
Bernd Schoeller wrote: > - Can we add __MINGW32__ to the ge_eiffel.h headerfile to point at the > windows architecture (and then to the pregenerated files) ? I have just > tried to compile GOBO under Windows using MinGW and everything seemed to > work fine except for this detail: > > #if !defined(WIN32) && \ > (defined(WINVER) || defined(_WIN32_WINNT) || defined(_WIN32) || \ > defined(__WIN32__) || defined(__TOS_WIN__) || defined(_MSC_VER)) > || \ > defined(__MINGW32__) Done. Do you have a config file for MinGW that I could add to $GOBO/tool/gec/config/c? -- Eric Bezault mailto:er...@go... http://www.gobosoft.com |
|
From: Eric B. <er...@go...> - 2007-11-01 15:31:50
|
Bernd Schoeller wrote: > - I think that the install.[sh|bat] scripts need updating. It still tries > to compile 'gec.c' instead of the multiple parts. Can you try it again: I think that I fixed it earlier today. -- Eric Bezault mailto:er...@go... http://www.gobosoft.com |
|
From: Bernd S. <ber...@in...> - 2007-11-01 14:51:36
|
Hi everybody,
some details for the next release:
- Can we add __MINGW32__ to the ge_eiffel.h headerfile to point at the
windows architecture (and then to the pregenerated files) ? I have just
tried to compile GOBO under Windows using MinGW and everything seemed to
work fine except for this detail:
#if !defined(WIN32) && \
(defined(WINVER) || defined(_WIN32_WINNT) || defined(_WIN32) || \
defined(__WIN32__) || defined(__TOS_WIN__) || defined(_MSC_VER))
|| \
defined(__MINGW32__)
- The help text of the .bat file under windows prints ugly " marks. This
can be avoided by removing the quotes from the echo statements, and
instead escaping <, > and | by ^, like this:
echo usage: bootstrap.bat [-v][--delivery] ^<c_compiler^>
^<eiffel_compiler^>
echo c_compiler: msc ^| lcc-win32 ^| bcc ^| gcc ^| cc ^| icc ^| tcc ^|
no_c
echo eiffel_compiler: ge ^| ise ^| se
- I think that the install.[sh|bat] scripts need updating. It still tries
to compile 'gec.c' instead of the multiple parts.
I will continue looking,
Bernd
|
|
From: Eric B. <er...@go...> - 2007-11-01 11:34:08
|
Colin Adams wrote: > Then the correct thing to do is to remove the call (after the > precursor call) to initialize_special_properties. I did so. > What I don't understand is why I didn't get this error when running > the tests with ge. That's probably because gec does not check assertions. > I am afraid as to what the state of my local > repository is compared with yours. Can this wait until tomorrow? I guess that I have no choice because some code does not even compile ;-( ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [VDRS-1] class XM_XPATH_LAST_POSITION_FINDER (19,29): `as_last_position_finder' is not the final name of a feature inherited from XM_XPATH_SEQUENCE_ITERATOR. ---- [VUAR-2] class XM_XPATH_ARRAY_ITERATOR (40,33): the 1-th actual argument (of type 'NONE') does not conform to the corresponding formal argument (of type 'G') of feature `has' in class ARRAY. ---- [VUAR-2] class XM_XPATH_ARRAY_ITERATOR (191,26): the 1-th actual argument (of type 'NONE') does not conform to the corresponding formal argument (of type 'G') of feature `has' in class ARRAY. ---- [VUEX-2] class XM_XPATH_DESCENDANT_ENUMERATION (129,28): `as_reversible_iterator' is not the final name of a feature in class XM_XPATH_AXIS_ITERATOR. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- Eric Bezault mailto:er...@go... http://www.gobosoft.com |
|
From: Colin A. <col...@go...> - 2007-11-01 10:57:46
|
Then the correct thing to do is to remove the call (after the precursor call) to initialize_special_properties. What I don't understand is why I didn't get this error when running the tests with ge. I am afraid as to what the state of my local repository is compared with yours. Can this wait until tomorrow? On 01/11/2007, Eric Bezault <er...@go...> wrote: > Colin Adams wrote: > > It's up to you. > > 6155 has fewer bugs. > > Hmm, this is not making things easy. > > Here is what I found: > > In XM_XPATH_COMPUTED_EXPRESSION: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > compute_special_properties is > -- Compute special properties. > require > not_yet_computed: not are_special_properties_computed > all_sub_expressions_computed: sub_expressions_have_special_properties > do > initialize_special_properties > ensure > computed: are_special_properties_computed and then special_properties > /= Void > end > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > And in XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION (6155): > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > compute_special_properties is > -- Compute special properties. > local > l_expression: XM_XPATH_COMPUTED_EXPRESSION > do > Precursor > initialize_special_properties > > if not are_cardinalities_computed then compute_cardinality end > if not start.are_special_properties_computed then > l_expression := start.as_computed_expression > l_expression.compute_special_properties > end > if not step.are_special_properties_computed then > l_expression := step.as_computed_expression > l_expression.compute_special_properties > end > > if start.non_creating and then step.non_creating then > set_non_creating > end > end > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > So `initialize_special_properties' is called twice (in the Precursor > and on the next line), which explains the precondition violation: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Class / Object Routine Nature of exception > Effect > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION > initialize_special_properties @5 > > special_properties_not_computed: > <00000000046E47B8> (From XM_XPATH_STATIC_PROPERTY) > Precondition violated. > Fail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION > compute_special_properties @4 > <00000000046E47B8> Routine failure. > Fail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION > compute_static_properties @29 > <00000000046E47B8> (From XM_XPATH_COMPUTED_EXPRESSION) > Routine failure. > Fail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION > make @7 > <00000000046E47B8> Routine failure. > Fail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Therefore, I suggest removing the call to > `initialize_special_properties' after the call > to Precursor. > > -- > Eric Bezault > mailto:er...@go... > http://www.gobosoft.com > |
|
From: Eric B. <er...@go...> - 2007-11-01 10:37:46
|
Colin Adams wrote:
> It's up to you.
> 6155 has fewer bugs.
Hmm, this is not making things easy.
Here is what I found:
In XM_XPATH_COMPUTED_EXPRESSION:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
compute_special_properties is
-- Compute special properties.
require
not_yet_computed: not are_special_properties_computed
all_sub_expressions_computed: sub_expressions_have_special_properties
do
initialize_special_properties
ensure
computed: are_special_properties_computed and then special_properties
/= Void
end
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And in XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION (6155):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
compute_special_properties is
-- Compute special properties.
local
l_expression: XM_XPATH_COMPUTED_EXPRESSION
do
Precursor
initialize_special_properties
if not are_cardinalities_computed then compute_cardinality end
if not start.are_special_properties_computed then
l_expression := start.as_computed_expression
l_expression.compute_special_properties
end
if not step.are_special_properties_computed then
l_expression := step.as_computed_expression
l_expression.compute_special_properties
end
if start.non_creating and then step.non_creating then
set_non_creating
end
end
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So `initialize_special_properties' is called twice (in the Precursor
and on the next line), which explains the precondition violation:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class / Object Routine Nature of exception
Effect
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION
initialize_special_properties @5
special_properties_not_computed:
<00000000046E47B8> (From XM_XPATH_STATIC_PROPERTY)
Precondition violated.
Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION
compute_special_properties @4
<00000000046E47B8> Routine failure.
Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION
compute_static_properties @29
<00000000046E47B8> (From XM_XPATH_COMPUTED_EXPRESSION)
Routine failure.
Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION
make @7
<00000000046E47B8> Routine failure.
Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, I suggest removing the call to
`initialize_special_properties' after the call
to Precursor.
--
Eric Bezault
mailto:er...@go...
http://www.gobosoft.com
|
|
From: Colin A. <col...@go...> - 2007-11-01 10:12:48
|
It's up to you. 6155 has fewer bugs. I shall continue to work on the code base at 6155, and correct the bugs as I find them (I'll check this one at the weekend). So please don't revert the trunk, as otherwise I shall get in a mess again. (A warning to others - this is how I think I got into the mess - I was creating some new classes, but then I decided they were in the wrong clusters - so as I had already issued svn add command, I issued svn mv commands to move them to the correct clusters. Which was fine until I tried to update or commit - then svn kept saying it couldn't issue an add as it was already added. The only way I could make progress was by doing an svn rm --force, whilst keeping a copy of the class in my Emacs buffer, and promptly adding it again - but there were a number of classes involved, and I missed one. In future, I am going to make it a rule to only move classes when the commit will consist of nothing but class moves). As for the SE 1.2r7 issue, I had tested this sort of thing before (I have removed it elsewhere). I didn't specifically test against SE on Monday morning as I had no time. On 01/11/2007, Eric Bezault <er...@go...> wrote: > Eric Bezault wrote: > > Colin Adams wrote: > >> Note that this is in the area of the class that I had to reconstruct > >> by hand on Monday morning. I THINK I only re-ran the tests with gec > >> that morning. > > > > OK, I managed to restore version 6152, which is the one that has > > been accidentally removed at version 6153. Can I use it instead of > > the one that you reconstructed by hand at version 6155? > > At least, the test passes now. > > -- > Eric Bezault > mailto:er...@go... > http://www.gobosoft.com > |
|
From: Eric B. <er...@go...> - 2007-11-01 10:01:31
|
Eric Bezault wrote: > Colin Adams wrote: >> Note that this is in the area of the class that I had to reconstruct >> by hand on Monday morning. I THINK I only re-ran the tests with gec >> that morning. > > OK, I managed to restore version 6152, which is the one that has > been accidentally removed at version 6153. Can I use it instead of > the one that you reconstructed by hand at version 6155? At least, the test passes now. -- Eric Bezault mailto:er...@go... http://www.gobosoft.com |
|
From: Eric B. <er...@go...> - 2007-11-01 09:44:18
|
Colin Adams wrote: > Note that this is in the area of the class that I had to reconstruct > by hand on Monday morning. I THINK I only re-ran the tests with gec > that morning. OK, I managed to restore version 6152, which is the one that has been accidentally removed at version 6153. Can I use it instead of the one that you reconstructed by hand at version 6155? I can also see that you made this modification in version 6155: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Modified: gobo/trunk/library/xml/xpath/expression/xm_xpath_path_expression.e =================================================================== --- gobo/trunk/library/xml/xpath/expression/xm_xpath_path_expression.e 2007-10-28 17:44:13 UTC (rev 6154) +++ gobo/trunk/library/xml/xpath/expression/xm_xpath_path_expression.e 2007-10-29 06:55:02 UTC (rev 6155) @@ -91,13 +91,8 @@ --Determine the data type of the expression, if possible do Result := step.item_type - if Result /= Void then - -- Bug in SE 1.0 and 1.1: Make sure that - -- that `Result' is not optimized away. - end end ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Did you make sure that it is working as expected with SE 1.2r7? -- Eric Bezault mailto:er...@go... http://www.gobosoft.com |
|
From: Eric B. <er...@go...> - 2007-11-01 09:23:00
|
Eric Bezault wrote: > Colin Adams wrote: >> I ran with all assertions on, but not using 6.1. > > I'm currently testing with a fresh copy out of SVN > to make sure that it is not due to some of my own > modifications. I still get the same problem... Let me try with 5.7 and/or 6.0 now... -- Eric Bezault mailto:er...@go... http://www.gobosoft.com |
|
From: Colin A. <col...@go...> - 2007-11-01 09:18:31
|
Note that this is in the area of the class that I had to reconstruct by hand on Monday morning. I THINK I only re-ran the tests with gec that morning. On 01/11/2007, Eric Bezault <er...@go...> wrote: > Colin Adams wrote: > > I ran with all assertions on, but not using 6.1. > > I'm currently testing with a fresh copy out of SVN > to make sure that it is not due to some of my own > modifications. > > -- > Eric Bezault > mailto:er...@go... > http://www.gobosoft.com > |
|
From: Eric B. <er...@go...> - 2007-11-01 09:07:32
|
Colin Adams wrote: > I ran with all assertions on, but not using 6.1. I'm currently testing with a fresh copy out of SVN to make sure that it is not due to some of my own modifications. -- Eric Bezault mailto:er...@go... http://www.gobosoft.com |
|
From: Colin A. <col...@go...> - 2007-11-01 09:01:29
|
I ran with all assertions on, but not using 6.1. On 01/11/2007, Eric Bezault <er...@go...> wrote: > Has someone already tried to run the test xml/xpath with > assertions on? I get the following exception trace when > compiled with ISE 6.1.7.0907, which is a not a good thing > for the new Gobo release: > > C:\gobo\test\xml\xpath>xpath -a > > xpath: system execution failed. > Following is the set of recorded exceptions: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Class / Object Routine Nature of exception > Effect > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION > initialize_special_properties @5 > special_properties_not_computed: > <00000000046E47B8> (From XM_XPATH_STATIC_PROPERTY) > Precondition violated. > Fail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION > compute_special_properties @4 > <00000000046E47B8> Routine failure. > Fail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION > compute_static_properties @29 > <00000000046E47B8> (From XM_XPATH_COMPUTED_EXPRESSION) > Routine failure. > Fail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION > make @7 > <00000000046E47B8> Routine failure. > Fail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > XM_XPATH_PATH_EXPRESSION > check_static_type @29 > <00000000046D3B88> Routine failure. > Fail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > XM_XPATH_EVALUATOR evaluate @9 > <0000000004637F88> Routine failure. > Fail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > XXM_XPATH_TEST_EVALUATOR > test_atomic_values_in_path_expression @5 > <0000000004D7F400> (From XM_XPATH_TEST_EVALUATOR) > Routine failure. > Fail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > XXM_XPATH_TEST_EVALUATOR > execute_i_th @30 > <0000000004D7F400> Routine failure. > Fail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > XXM_XPATH_TEST_EVALUATOR > execute_without_rescue @3 > <0000000004D7F400> (From TS_TEST_CASE) Routine failure. > Fail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > XXM_XPATH_TEST_EVALUATOR > execute @5 > <0000000004D7F400> (From TS_TEST_CASE) Routine failure. > Fail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > TS_TEST_SUITE execute @5 > <0000000004D7D678> Routine failure. > Fail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > XPATH execute @12 > <0000000004D7D318> (From TS_TESTER) Routine failure. > Fail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > XPATH make @11 > <0000000004D7D318> (From TS_TESTER) Routine failure. > Fail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > XPATH root's creation > <0000000004D7D318> Routine failure. > Exit > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > And apparently there are other assertion problems with this test: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Testing xpath... > Preparing Test Cases > Compiling Test Cases > Running Test Cases > > Test Summary for xpath > > # Passed: 266 tests > # Failed: 0 test > # ABORTED: 9 tests > # Total: 275 tests (1811 assertions) > > Test Results: > ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_EVALUATOR.test_atomic_values_in_path_expression] > Eiffel e > xception > ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_EVALUATOR.test_for_error_xpty0018] Eiffel exception > ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_EVALUATOR.test_for_error_xpty0019] Eiffel exception > ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_LANG.test_lang_one] Eiffel exception > ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_LANG.test_lang_two] Eiffel exception > ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_LANG.test_lang_three] Eiffel exception > ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_LANG.test_lang_four] Eiffel exception > ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_LANG.test_lang_five] Eiffel exception > ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_LANG.test_lang_six] Eiffel exception > > BUILD FAILED! > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -- > Eric Bezault > mailto:er...@go... > http://www.gobosoft.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > gobo-eiffel-develop mailing list > gob...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gobo-eiffel-develop > |
|
From: Eric B. <er...@go...> - 2007-11-01 08:23:42
|
Has someone already tried to run the test xml/xpath with
assertions on? I get the following exception trace when
compiled with ISE 6.1.7.0907, which is a not a good thing
for the new Gobo release:
C:\gobo\test\xml\xpath>xpath -a
xpath: system execution failed.
Following is the set of recorded exceptions:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class / Object Routine Nature of exception
Effect
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION
initialize_special_properties @5
special_properties_not_computed:
<00000000046E47B8> (From XM_XPATH_STATIC_PROPERTY)
Precondition violated.
Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION
compute_special_properties @4
<00000000046E47B8> Routine failure.
Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION
compute_static_properties @29
<00000000046E47B8> (From XM_XPATH_COMPUTED_EXPRESSION)
Routine failure.
Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XM_XPATH_MAPPED_PATH_EXPRESSION
make @7
<00000000046E47B8> Routine failure.
Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XM_XPATH_PATH_EXPRESSION
check_static_type @29
<00000000046D3B88> Routine failure.
Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XM_XPATH_EVALUATOR evaluate @9
<0000000004637F88> Routine failure.
Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XXM_XPATH_TEST_EVALUATOR
test_atomic_values_in_path_expression @5
<0000000004D7F400> (From XM_XPATH_TEST_EVALUATOR)
Routine failure.
Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XXM_XPATH_TEST_EVALUATOR
execute_i_th @30
<0000000004D7F400> Routine failure.
Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XXM_XPATH_TEST_EVALUATOR
execute_without_rescue @3
<0000000004D7F400> (From TS_TEST_CASE) Routine failure.
Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XXM_XPATH_TEST_EVALUATOR
execute @5
<0000000004D7F400> (From TS_TEST_CASE) Routine failure.
Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TS_TEST_SUITE execute @5
<0000000004D7D678> Routine failure.
Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XPATH execute @12
<0000000004D7D318> (From TS_TESTER) Routine failure.
Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XPATH make @11
<0000000004D7D318> (From TS_TESTER) Routine failure.
Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XPATH root's creation
<0000000004D7D318> Routine failure.
Exit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And apparently there are other assertion problems with this test:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Testing xpath...
Preparing Test Cases
Compiling Test Cases
Running Test Cases
Test Summary for xpath
# Passed: 266 tests
# Failed: 0 test
# ABORTED: 9 tests
# Total: 275 tests (1811 assertions)
Test Results:
ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_EVALUATOR.test_atomic_values_in_path_expression]
Eiffel e
xception
ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_EVALUATOR.test_for_error_xpty0018] Eiffel exception
ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_EVALUATOR.test_for_error_xpty0019] Eiffel exception
ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_LANG.test_lang_one] Eiffel exception
ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_LANG.test_lang_two] Eiffel exception
ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_LANG.test_lang_three] Eiffel exception
ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_LANG.test_lang_four] Eiffel exception
ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_LANG.test_lang_five] Eiffel exception
ABORT: [XM_XPATH_TEST_LANG.test_lang_six] Eiffel exception
BUILD FAILED!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
Eric Bezault
mailto:er...@go...
http://www.gobosoft.com
|
36 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
