Menu
▾
▴
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
|
|
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 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 09:18:31
|
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 09:44:18
|
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: 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 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 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...> - 2007-11-02 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...> - 2007-11-01 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: 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: 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 10:37:46
|
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: 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: 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 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 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 16:39:53
|
>>>>> "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, but that's no good to use if Gobo 3.7
Colin> is supporting 5.7 and 6.0.
I was seeing the machine hanging (presumably with kernel errors).
After rebooting, the xslt tests compile and run fine (with ISE 6.1)
--=20
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? > >> > 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 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: Colin P. A. <co...@co...> - 2007-11-02 15:16:21
|
>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bezault <er...@go...> writes:
>> >> 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 deleted this class.
Eric> And what about the other two?
I've fixed the errors.
In the case of the XM_XPATH_ARRAY_ITERATOR errors, my "fix" was to
comment out the assertion, replacing it by True. I'm assuming gec was
complaining because of the possibility of an expanded generic, and I
don't know a better fix (I understand that the reference keyword is
deprecated). Perhaps you can do better.
--
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire
|
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X