On Sep 27, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr> wrote:
> > On Sep 27, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr> wrote: > >> >> On Sep 27, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Pavel Krivanek <pavel.kriva...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> And it's interesting that during the first pass on a dirty image it >>> works well even on the slave too. >>> >> >> I will revert the compiler merge for now >> >> (it did even run the regression tests… but showing some strange - I think - >> trait-recompiling >> related bug..) >> >> So what we will do >> >> -> revert this update (it is already auto-reverted due to the crash) >> -> save Opal as it is in the image before this to to the Opal repo >> -> get the Opal regression green (traits bug) >> -> get image green (we do have some failing tests) >> -> *then* on the Opal repo, merge step-by-the intermediate 5 small commits >> (Abstract compiler class, some trivial cleanups, clean block analysis >> that is not called) >> I do not see how these changes could lead to the problem, but it could be >> that there is some >> bug in the compiler that shows itself when recompiling certain methods. >> >> One interesting observation: we did not check the Opal-Regression tester for >> 4 weeks, and >> we are in the mess. This just shows how important continous integration + >> automatic regression >> testing *after every commit* is for compiler development… (or being more >> intelligent would maybe >> another solution ;-) >> > > Result: it still fails, even after reverting. > > Are we sure that the VM did not change in the middle? It looks *really* > strange! > > https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-3.0-Update-Step-2.1-Validation/label=linux-stable-worker/ > It seems someone changed the config to load the latest VM which has problems right now. I will revert that. Marcus
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
