From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2016-07-24 20:52:26
|
Hi, With apologies for the short notice: I'll be aiming to release sbcl-1.3.8 towards the end of the coming week, so please could we have a short but intense testing period for the next few days? Thanks, Christophe |
From: Zach B. <xa...@xa...> - 2016-07-26 12:54:43
|
Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> writes: > Hi, > > With apologies for the short notice: I'll be aiming to release > sbcl-1.3.8 towards the end of the coming week, so please could we have a > short but intense testing period for the next few days? There are several failures today. Some of them look like library problems but others look suspiciously like SBCL changes or problems. http://report.quicklisp.org/2016-07-25/failure-report.html I don't know if this is new, but it looks odd: http://report.quicklisp.org/2016-07-25/failure-report/com.informatimago.html#com.informatimago.lispdoc ; caught WARNING: ; Bad bounding indeces 21, 2 for SEQUENCE "Indeces"? Zach |
From: Jan M. <jmo...@te...> - 2016-07-26 14:26:59
|
Hi Xach, thanks for the report. On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 08:30 -0400, Zach Beane wrote: > > With apologies for the short notice: I'll be aiming to release > > sbcl-1.3.8 towards the end of the coming week, so please could we > > have a > > short but intense testing period for the next few days? > > There are several failures today. Some of them look like library > problems but others look suspiciously like SBCL changes or problems. > > http://report.quicklisp.org/2016-07-25/failure-report.html There have been several changes regarding type derivation for sequence- related functions and type operations involving conditions. Many of the failures seem to be results of these changes. That said, I'm not yet entirely sure who is at fault with this: ; caught WARNING: ; Derived type of CONDITION is (VALUES PTESTER::SIMPLE-BREAK &OPTIONAL), conflicting with its asserted type (OR (VECTOR CHARACTER) (VECTOR NIL) BASE-STRING FUNCTION). and similar failures affecting a couple of libraries. Without having done any digging, my guess is that PTESTER::SIMPLE-BREAK is a condition class. SBCL now exploits the fact that conditions are disjoint from functions. The flare case has (LET* ([...] (#:TO519 NIL) [...]) [...] (DECLARE (TYPE REAL #:TO519)) in the macroexpansion, so that one should not be a result of changes in SBCL. > I don't know if this is new, but it looks odd: > > http://report.quicklisp.org/2016-07-25/failure-report/com.informati > mago.html#com.informatimago.lispdoc > > ; caught WARNING: > ; Bad bounding indeces 21, 2 for SEQUENCE > > "Indeces"? Looks like a typo. The corresponding code is indeed new. Kind regards, Jan |
From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2016-07-26 15:17:29
|
Jan Moringen <jmo...@te...> writes: >> There are several failures today. Some of them look like library >> problems but others look suspiciously like SBCL changes or problems. >> >> http://report.quicklisp.org/2016-07-25/failure-report.html > > There have been several changes regarding type derivation for sequence- > related functions and type operations involving conditions. Many of the > failures seem to be results of these changes. > > That said, I'm not yet entirely sure who is at fault with this: > > ; caught WARNING: > ; Derived type of CONDITION is (VALUES PTESTER::SIMPLE-BREAK > &OPTIONAL), conflicting with its asserted type (OR (VECTOR CHARACTER) > (VECTOR NIL) BASE-STRING FUNCTION). > > and similar failures affecting a couple of libraries. Without having > done any digging, my guess is that PTESTER::SIMPLE-BREAK is a condition > class. SBCL now exploits the fact that conditions are disjoint from > functions. ptester-2.1.2 (a version I found floating around) does, lightly abbreviated: (if (typep condition 'simple-break) (break condition) ...) but BREAK's first argument is a format control, not a condition. (In other words, this is broken code newly being picked up by SBCL changes). Cheers, Christophe |
From: Stas B. <sta...@gm...> - 2016-07-26 17:21:18
|
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Zach Beane <xa...@xa...> wrote: > Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> writes: > >> Hi, >> >> With apologies for the short notice: I'll be aiming to release >> sbcl-1.3.8 towards the end of the coming week, so please could we have a >> short but intense testing period for the next few days? > > There are several failures today. Some of them look like library > problems but others look suspiciously like SBCL changes or problems. > > http://report.quicklisp.org/2016-07-25/failure-report.html I fixed a few of the sequence type derivation failures. Can you please rerun your tests? > I don't know if this is new, but it looks odd: > > http://report.quicklisp.org/2016-07-25/failure-report/com.informatimago.html#com.informatimago.lispdoc > > ; caught WARNING: > ; Bad bounding indeces 21, 2 for SEQUENCE > > "Indeces"? That's a middle ground between indexes and indices. A failure in clml is caused by (deftype dvec () '(simple-array double-float (*))) then SVM-INIT does (make-array (list n n) :initial-element 0.0d0 :element-type 'double-float) And SVM declares that as DVEC, which is clearly mismatching. -- With best regards, Stas. |