mark florisson, 09.08.2012 18:51: > On 9 August 2012 16:36, Stefan Behnel wrote: >> Stefan Behnel, 09.08.2012 14:31: >>> mark florisson, 07.08.2012 11:09: >>>> I thought the 32 bit issue was resolved? You pushed a fix and I fixed >>>> some tests, so it passed for me. I can run it again to check... >>> >>> I don't know. Yaroslav replied to your mail saying that your fixes didn't >>> change anything for the Debian builds. Let's see what he has to say about >>> the second beta. >> >> He ran them through the build servers. Here are the latest results: >> >> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=cython&suite=experimental >> >> (hint: click on "all" in the Logs column, then click on the build result to >> see the log output) >> >> The i386 tests show 4 errors related to fused types in the NumPy tests: >> >> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=cython&arch=i386&ver=0.17~beta1-2&stamp=1343428255 >> >> >From a quick look, they might really be problems in the tests rather than >> the code we generate. >> >> It also looks like my signed char fix was not sufficient, as you can see in >> the memslice tests here, e.g. in the >> "memslice.__test__.test_memslice_struct_with_arrays" test: >> >> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=cython&arch=s390&ver=0.17~beta1-2&stamp=1343418358 >> >> It now prints >> >> """ >> ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'char' but got 'unsigned char' >> in 'ArrayStruct.chars' >> """ >> >> Well, "char" and "unsigned char" are supposed to be the same on this >> platform, but I guess it can't know that. I wonder if "char" and "signed >> char" are considered identical on other platforms ... >> >> To fix the tests, it might be enough to use an explicit "unsigned char" >> instead of plain "char" for the types. Not sure if that's a good idea or if >> there actually is a bug hidden below this test failure. At least, it smells >> like an inconvenience for users to get that error. > > I think these tests are fine (unlike the fused test I fixed), it's a > bug somewhere. I'm not sure where though, because the code that > creates the format string uses the type info struct (with the C > compile-time unsigned check), and so does the buffer format parser. > The code creating the type strings are in the MemoryView.pyx and > Buffer.c utility files at the bottom. It does > > if (type->is_unsigned) > *buf = toupper(*buf); > > So whatever I feed it on my system (char, signed char or unsigned > char), it generates the right format string for me.
I think this needs some more investigation directly on the failing systems. It'll be much easier to figure this out with a debugger. > Perhaps we can just ignore these test failures, I don't think many > people are using memoryviews with characters. Changing them to signed > or unsigned char may fix the problem for the tests, though. If we can't find a way to fix this in time, I'm leaning towards that, too. However, working around a bug in a test is a sure way to forget about the bug and consider everything working. Could you copy the failing tests into a separate test case, disable that in bugs.txt and then change the types in the original test modules to whatever you think would make the tests work? > Is it bad to release something that doesn't pass the entire test suite > on some system? Given that we already made tons of releases without even knowing that they'd fail on some systems, I'd say no. :) So far, we've always taken care of the most common systems and just tried to accommodate for other systems to a certain extent. It really doesn't matter if we fix these things before or after the 0.17 release. Stefan _______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
