From: Richard M K. <kr...@pr...> - 2005-06-02 16:01:31
|
Howdy, A couple tests that fail in debug.impure.lisp on NetBSD/x86 with 0.9.1 and yesterday's anoncvs are conditionalized out for x86 linux. I can't tell if these ought to be sensitive to the operating system. Is there any reason why these tests should get run on NetBSD/x86? Thanks, Richard diff -u /home/kreuter/lsp/imp/sbcl/0.9.1/sbcl-0.9.1/tests/debug.impure.lisp.orig /home/kreuter/lsp/imp/sbcl/0.9.1/sbcl-0.9.1/tests/debug.impure.lisp --- /home/kreuter/lsp/imp/sbcl/0.9.1/sbcl-0.9.1/tests/debug.impure.lisp.orig 2005-04-13 09:48:59.000000000 -0400 +++ /home/kreuter/lsp/imp/sbcl/0.9.1/sbcl-0.9.1/tests/debug.impure.lisp 2005-06-02 11:43:05.000000000 -0400 @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ '((flet not-optimized)) (list '(flet test) #'not-optimized))))) -#-(or alpha (and x86 linux)) ; bug 61 +#-(or alpha (and x86 (or linux netbsd))) ; bug 61 (progn (defun throw-test () (throw 'no-such-tag t)) @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ (defbt 5 (&optional (opt (oops))) (list opt)) -#-(and x86 linux) +#-(and x86 (or linux netbsd)) (macrolet ((with-details (bool &body body) `(let ((sb-debug:*show-entry-point-details* ,bool)) ,@body))) Diff finished. Thu Jun 2 11:51:06 2005 |
From: Nikodemus S. <nik...@ra...> - 2005-06-02 16:14:32
|
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Richard M Kreuter wrote: > A couple tests that fail in debug.impure.lisp on NetBSD/x86 with 0.9.1 > and yesterday's anoncvs are conditionalized out for x86 linux. I > can't tell if these ought to be sensitive to the operating system. Is > there any reason why these tests should get run on NetBSD/x86? They are indeed sensitive to the operating system. Probable cause: x86-call-context. Unless there are objections I'll merge this and add a note about NetBSD to BUGS. Does NetBSD currently pass other tests? Cheers, -- Nikodemus Schemer: "Buddha is small, clean, and serious." Lispnik: "Buddha is big, has hairy armpits, and laughs." |
From: Richard M K. <kr...@pr...> - 2005-06-02 19:14:28
|
Nikodemus Siivola <nik...@ra...> writes: > On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Richard M Kreuter wrote: > >> A couple tests that fail in debug.impure.lisp on NetBSD/x86 with >> 0.9.1 and yesterday's anoncvs are conditionalized out for x86 >> linux. I can't tell if these ought to be sensitive to the >> operating system. Is there any reason why these tests should get >> run on NetBSD/x86? > > They are indeed sensitive to the operating system. Probable cause: > x86-call-context. Unless there are objections I'll merge this and > add a note about NetBSD to BUGS. Okay, I see the description of this on Linux in BUGS. > Does NetBSD currently pass other tests? All but one: non-encapsulating trace at the end of debug.impure.lisp. Non-encapsulating traces (the non-default trace mode) induce a segmentation fault that isn't handled correctly. I'm still trying to figure out what's going on there. Are these three known bugs sufficient to prevent posting a 0.9.1 build for NetBSD on the file release page? I can supply one, if not. -- Richard |
From: Nikodemus S. <nik...@ra...> - 2005-06-03 04:57:36
|
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Richard M Kreuter wrote: > All but one: non-encapsulating trace at the end of debug.impure.lisp. > Non-encapsulating traces (the non-default trace mode) induce a > segmentation fault that isn't handled correctly. I'm still trying to > figure out what's going on there. > > Are these three known bugs sufficient to prevent posting a 0.9.1 build > for NetBSD on the file release page? I can supply one, if not. I don't think they are serious issues; definitely worth fixing, but nothing that makes the build particularly unstable or useless. As a matter of fact, as you seem to track SBCL on NetBSD pretty actively I'd be inclined to comment out the trace thing on NetBSD as well, and add NetBSD (what version?) to the list of platforms on which the test suite is "expected to pass". ...this on the assumption that you'll give a holler when it doesn't. ,-) Cheers, -- Nikodemus Schemer: "Buddha is small, clean, and serious." Lispnik: "Buddha is big, has hairy armpits, and laughs." |
From: Richard M K. <kr...@pr...> - 2005-06-03 14:44:13
|
Nikodemus Siivola <nik...@ra...> writes: > I'd be inclined to comment out the trace thing on NetBSD as well, and > add NetBSD (what version?) to the list of platforms on which the test > suite is "expected to pass". NetBSD 2.0.x. Never tried on -current. > ...this on the assumption that you'll give a holler when it > doesn't. ,-) Sure, that's easy to do. Whom should I ping about posting a binary build on the downloads page? I've encountered at least one person in #lisp who was using my old 0.8.16 build on NetBSD, and so there might be others looking for builds of the current releases, too. -- Richard |
From: William H. N. <wil...@ai...> - 2005-06-03 16:26:44
|
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 10:38:20AM -0400, Richard M Kreuter wrote: > Whom should I ping about posting a binary build on the downloads page? > I've encountered at least one person in #lisp who was using my old > 0.8.16 build on NetBSD, and so there might be others looking for > builds of the current releases, too. I don't remember, if I ever knew, exactly what SourceForge permission flags are involved with posting a file to the File Releases page, but I think most or all developers have them. (And if anyone finds that he doesn't have them, it should be easy to convince me to change that.) Thus, if you put the binary on the net someplace, and send sbcl-devel email with URL and checksum, then any of a number of us -- maybe even me, on a good day -- could put it on the File Releases page for you. I think it's generally agreed that it's good to have at least one not-too-stale binary for almost any given architecture, so that cross-compiling isn't needed. (Just because many of us, esp. CSR, have worked to make cross-compiling clean and routine doesn't mean that we actually think it's good for everyone to do cross-compiles.:-) Ergo, even if there's no developer sufficiently motivated to build it, it's still fairly likely that there will be one or more motivated to post it. -- William Harold Newman <wil...@ai...> PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C So our children are stealing music today, but very soon they'll be stealing full-length feature films, and it's our job to give them the infrastructure to do that... -- Bob Metcalfe |
From: Richard M K. <kr...@pr...> - 2005-06-05 01:37:37
|
William Harold Newman <wil...@ai...> writes: > Thus, if you put the binary on the net someplace, and send sbcl-devel > email with URL and checksum, then any of a number of us -- maybe even > me, on a good day -- could put it on the File Releases page for you. Okay. Packaged up with binary-distribution.sh, and without the documentation (like the -x86-linux build): http://progn.net/static/tmp/sbcl-0.9.1-x86-netbsd-binary.tar.bz2 The MD5 sum is 0d42da5a67e0b0e6c580b5c2d6ce4e4d. The SHA1 sum 3296751dd7fe944bb5aa5e32c20e1b0510165647. I'll try to make a point of building each months' release and posting here. -- Richard |
From: William H. N. <wil...@ai...> - 2005-06-05 12:10:08
|
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 09:35:27PM -0400, Richard M Kreuter wrote: > William Harold Newman <wil...@ai...> writes: > > > Thus, if you put the binary on the net someplace, and send sbcl-devel > > email with URL and checksum, then any of a number of us -- maybe even > > me, on a good day -- could put it on the File Releases page for you. > > Okay. Packaged up with binary-distribution.sh, and without the > documentation (like the -x86-linux build): > > http://progn.net/static/tmp/sbcl-0.9.1-x86-netbsd-binary.tar.bz2 > > The MD5 sum is 0d42da5a67e0b0e6c580b5c2d6ce4e4d. > > The SHA1 sum 3296751dd7fe944bb5aa5e32c20e1b0510165647. Currently I have no fast net connection in my new apartment, so I tried to get it from my shell account at sbcl.sf.net, $ wget http://progn.net/static/tmp/sbcl-0.9.1-x86-netbsd-binary.tar.bz2 but got --05:05:33-- http://progn.net/static/tmp/sbcl-0.9.1-x86-netbsd-binary.tar.bz2 => `sbcl-0.9.1-x86-netbsd-binary.tar.bz2' Resolving progn.net... 66.139.79.217 Connecting to progn.net[66.139.79.217]:80... failed: Connection refused. $ I dunno whether this is a problem at SourceForge or at your end. -- William Harold Newman <wil...@ai...> PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C Ubi saeva indignatio ulterius cor lacerare nequit. -- Jonathan Swift's epitaph |
From: William H. N. <wil...@ai...> - 2005-06-05 12:39:59
|
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 07:07:41AM -0500, William Harold Newman wrote: > Currently I have no fast net connection in my new apartment, so I > tried to get it from my shell account at sbcl.sf.net, > $ wget http://progn.net/static/tmp/sbcl-0.9.1-x86-netbsd-binary.tar.bz2 > but got > --05:05:33-- http://progn.net/static/tmp/sbcl-0.9.1-x86-netbsd-binary.tar.bz2 > => `sbcl-0.9.1-x86-netbsd-binary.tar.bz2' > Resolving progn.net... 66.139.79.217 > Connecting to progn.net[66.139.79.217]:80... failed: Connection refused. > $ > I dunno whether this is a problem at SourceForge or at your end. Duh, it works from outside SourceForge. I'm sorry, of course I should've tried before from another source before replying (esp. to the entire list); I plead impatience going through my mail before embarking on some programming that I had been thinking about off and on all night. On my slow connection it'll take some time, but hopefully I'll have the file posted today. -- William Harold Newman <wil...@ai...> PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C Ubi saeva indignatio ulterius cor lacerare nequit. -- Jonathan Swift's epitaph |