From: Nathan F. <fr...@ro...> - 2001-03-24 05:44:20
|
DEFSYSTEM was the one thing holding me back from using SBCL exclusively. But then I found the patch from Daniel Barlow which applied without incident on DEFSYSTEM 3.2i from sourceforge. So far, so good. I COMPILE-FILE and whatnot; goes well, complains a little bit more than CMUCL and takes nearly three times as long, but that's no big deal (the x86f file is smaller, any particular reason?). So we do the following: * (load "defsystem") debugger invoked on condition of type TYPE-ERROR: TYPE-ERROR in SB-KERNEL::OBJECT-NOT-TYPE-ERROR-HANDLER: 0 is not of type (OR FUNCTION SB-KERNEL:FDEFN). Within the debugger, you can type HELP for help. At any command prompt (within the debugger or not) you can type (SB-EXT:QUIT) to terminate the SBCL executable. The condition which caused the debugger to be entered is bound to SB-DEBUG:*DEBUG-CONDITION*. restarts: 0: [ABORT ] Reduce debugger level (leaving debugger). 1: [TOPLEVEL] Restart at toplevel READ/EVAL/PRINT loop. (SB-C::DO-CALL #<code object "top-level form" {900C39F}> 5 6 4 1 T) source: ; file: /home/nathan/lisp/sbcl/src/code/byte-interp.lisp (LET* ((OLD-SP #) (FUN-OR-FDEFN #) (FUNCTION #)) (DECLARE (TYPE STACK-POINTER OLD-SP) (TYPE # FUN-OR-FDEFN) (TYPE FUNCTION FUNCTION)) (TYPECASE FUNCTION (BYTE-FUNCTION #) (BYTE-CLOSURE #) (T #))) 0] Shucks! This is with 0.6.11.13. Any suggestions on what's going wrong here? I'm going to try and grab the new cvs and see if that fixes anything. I don't think it will, but you never know... -- </nathan> fr...@ro... | http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~froydnj/ Yes, God had a deadline. So He wrote it all in Lisp. |
From: Martin A. <ma...@at...> - 2001-03-24 10:36:11
|
Nathan Froyd wrote: > > DEFSYSTEM was the one thing holding me back from using SBCL > exclusively. But then I found the patch from Daniel Barlow which > applied without incident on DEFSYSTEM 3.2i from sourceforge. So far, so > good. [...] (Yes, this was a bug, I ran into a while ago, too) > Shucks! This is with 0.6.11.13. Any suggestions on what's going wrong > here? I'm going to try and grab the new cvs and see if that fixes > anything. I don't think it will, but you never know... This has been fixed. I think the bug crept in around 0.6.11.6 and got out with 0.6.11.14. The new CVS works fine (for me, at least). If it doesn't I can send "my" defsystem-sbcl. Cheers, Martin |
From: William H. N. <wil...@ai...> - 2001-03-24 16:24:33
|
On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 12:39:44AM -0500, Nathan Froyd wrote: > DEFSYSTEM was the one thing holding me back from using SBCL > exclusively. But then I found the patch from Daniel Barlow which > applied without incident on DEFSYSTEM 3.2i from sourceforge. So far, so > good. > > I COMPILE-FILE and whatnot; goes well, complains a little bit more than > CMUCL and takes nearly three times as long, but that's no big deal (the > x86f file is smaller, any particular reason?). So we do the following: No, I don't know why the x86f file would be smaller. I can actually think of reasons it would be a little larger, but not vice versa. The compiler is slow. The original CMU CL compiler wasn't particularly speedy, and I made SBCL even slower by removing some messy efficiency-oriented code (most especially pooling of compiler data structures), and I might have hurt performance inadvertently when I had to rewrite some low-level things portably for bootstrapping. Also, the recent type system changes (adding &REST arguments to TYPE-UNION and TYPE-INTERSECTION, and not (yet) memoizing them) seem to make things measurably worse (another 10% hit or so). I've paid almost no attention to improving the efficiency of the compiler or loader, so there are probably some easy fixes in there, but I just haven't gotten around to it. In some cases the compiler's performance is so ridiculous (taking more than a minute on a 450 MHz machine to compile a function of 100 lines or so??) that it can be considered a bug, and I've been tempted to get serious about fixing it. Also, I'd like to make compilation with (DECLAIM (COMPILER-SPEED 3)) do something useful. But it may not get better for a while. [bug report snipped] > Shucks! This is with 0.6.11.13. Any suggestions on what's going wrong > here? I'm going to try and grab the new cvs and see if that fixes > anything. I don't think it will, but you never know... As Martin Atzmueller wrote, this looks like a bug which has since been fixed. -- William Harold Newman <wil...@ai...> software consultant PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C |