Kenny Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Luis Oliveira wrote: >> so I completed what was missing in uffi-compat and it passes all >> tests under SBCL and CLISP. The real UFFI itself failed a couple of >> tests on Allegro but passes all tests using UFFI-COMPAT, ahah. Isn't >> that sweet? > > I think it is a very Good Sign that your test suite is unearthing bugs > in UFFI as well as the Lisps themselves, and of course that CFFI > passes those tests. Do you feel you did a good job of having the test > suite dig into the edge cases of FFI? Is that why you are finding bugs > in Lisps?
No, no.. you misread that. UFFI has a test suite too, and that's the one I'm referring to. UFFI fails its own tests while CFFI's UFFI-COMPAT passes them. :-) Anyway, regarding the test suite.. I just looked at what James had and followed his example. Test all types, test all use cases, etc... It's no ansi-tests, but then again, I'm no pfdietz ;-) *back to reading CLtL2 from cover to cover* > Looks great. thx for jumping on those stray issues I unearthed. Can > you throw me a bone and send me a tarball? I have managed to avoid > digging up a WinDARC and would like to keep it that way as long as > possible. Yeah, I set up a directory in CFFI's webpage with snapshots: http://common-lisp.net/project/cffi/tarballs/ Ah, remember I changed foreign-alloc a bit and removed foreign-object-alloc. (the docs are updated reflecting that change). -- Luis Oliveira luismbo (@) gmail (.) com Equipa Portuguesa do Translation Project http://www2.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard/po/registry.cgi?team=pt _______________________________________________ cffi-devel mailing list cffi-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-devel
