[perl #60312] [BUG] OpenBSD Smolder test failures
On Tue May 12 05:18:47 2009, jk...@verizon.net wrote: Here's an update based on a recent Smolder report Thanks to a steady stream of Smolder reports from 'sm...@pc42.my.domain' -- I don't know who the human there is -- performed on OpenBSD/amd64, we can see that we are passing all non-SKIPped tests in the 4 files cited. Example: http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/report_details/25466 So I'm resolving this ticket. Thank you very much. kid51
[perl #60312] [BUG] OpenBSD Smolder test failures
Here's an update based on a recent Smolder report (http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/report_details/21469); veracity.t: passing arithmetics.t: ok 7 - negate -0.0 # TODO -0.0 not implemented, TT #313 : still not passing (Why is this showing up yellow rather than green on the Smolder report if it is 'ok'?) complex.t: not ok 380 # TODO sinh of -2-3i not ok 381 # TODO sinh of -2-3i float.t: not ok 23 - neg 0 # TODO -0.0 not implemented, TT #313 # Failed (TODO) test 'neg 0' # at t/pmc/float.t line 512. # '0' # doesn't match '/^-0/ # ' So I would say that only one of the six tests I originally flagged has been clearly resolved.
Re: [perl #60312] [BUG] OpenBSD Smolder test failures
James Keenan via RT wrote: arithmetics.t: ok 7 - negate -0.0 # TODO -0.0 not implemented, TT #313 : still not passing (Why is this showing up yellow rather than green on the Smolder report if it is 'ok'?) Because it's a TODO test. TODO tests aren't counted in the passing total whether they pass or not. That's a pretty standard TAP interpretation. -- Michael Peters Plus Three, LP
Re: [perl #60312] [BUG] OpenBSD Smolder test failures
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, chromatic wrote: On Monday 03 November 2008 09:38:11 Andy Dougherty wrote: 3. 1 of the tests appears to fail depending on how the OS initial- cases 'Inf'. Again, could this be addressed in a hints file? This too is a long-standing problem: See [perl #19183]. It stalled pending a decision on whether or not parrot should try to enforce a single spelling of 'Inf' (and 'Nan', etc.) or whether the tests should patch over the issue. What does Perl 5 do? Let's do that. (No one else has made a decision.) I'm pretty sure Perl 5 just does whatever the underlying system does. At lesat I don't remember ever writing any Configure tests to do otherwise, and a quick look doesn't turn up anything obvious, and I don't think the test suite specifically tests for it. -- Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [perl #60312] [BUG] OpenBSD Smolder test failures
On Monday 03 November 2008 09:38:11 Andy Dougherty wrote: 3. 1 of the tests appears to fail depending on how the OS initial- cases 'Inf'. Again, could this be addressed in a hints file? This too is a long-standing problem: See [perl #19183]. It stalled pending a decision on whether or not parrot should try to enforce a single spelling of 'Inf' (and 'Nan', etc.) or whether the tests should patch over the issue. What does Perl 5 do? Let's do that. (No one else has made a decision.) -- c
Re: [perl #60312] [BUG] OpenBSD Smolder test failures
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 01:03:47PM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, chromatic wrote:
+if (fabsl(ld) == 0.0 Parrot_signbit(ld))
+info.flags |= FLAG_MINUS;
+
(I'm not sure how portable fabsl() is either, though it may not matter.
I don't see any harm to just omitting it here.)
Me neither. Surely
if (0.0 != -0.0) {
fputs(Your compiler is broken!, stderr);
}
(not tested. Particularly, not tested on icc with the optimiser enabled)
Nicholas Clark
Re: [perl #60312] [BUG] OpenBSD Smolder test failures
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, chromatic wrote: On Monday 03 November 2008 09:38:11 Andy Dougherty wrote: I wonder if this patch fixes things. Certainly it does no harm on my box. Parrot_signbit() already exists in the platform files, so we might as well use it. --- src/spf_render.c (revision 32475) +++ src/spf_render.c (local) @@ -724,7 +724,12 @@ STRING *ts; const HUGEFLOATVAL thefloat = obj-getfloat(interp, info.type, obj); +const long double ld = (long double)thefloat; +/* force negative float zero to -0.0 in output */ +if (fabsl(ld) == 0.0 Parrot_signbit(ld)) +info.flags |= FLAG_MINUS; + Unfortunately, whether or not signbit takes a double or a 'long double' appears to depend on the platform. On Linux, signbit is a macro which is supposed to work for all floating point types. On Solaris, there are separate signbitf(), signbit() and signbitl() types to deal with float, double, and long double respectively. Probably whatever piece of Configure figures out HUGEFLOATVAL should also figure out the appropriate Parrot_signbitH() or some such to use with it. (I'd guess it's almost always Parrot_signbitl().) (I'm not sure how portable fabsl() is either, though it may not matter. I don't see any harm to just omitting it here.) -- Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [perl #60312] [BUG] OpenBSD Smolder test failures
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, James Keenan wrote: # New Ticket Created by James Keenan # Please include the string: [perl #60312] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=60312 Thanks to some automated test reporting setups (which I think are still coming from magnachef), we are getting a steady stream of test reports on the Smolder site from FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD. Of the three, the first two generally pass 100% of tests, but OpenBSD's performance has often been much poorer. Of late, OpenBSD has been passing 99.95% of its tests, which is a clear improvement over just a month ago. So I figured it would probably be good to put all the failures we're still getting on OpenBSD in one place to see if patterns emerge. I want to stress that I have neither experience with, nor access to, OpenBSD. So I have no particular insight into these failures, nor can I directly test patches. As of today, there are 6 tests failing on OpenBSD, as reported on Smolder. Nice job pulling out the relevant tests and figuring out what's going on! Observations: 1. All 6 of these tests are marked to be skipped on Win32. So perhaps the reason they're failing on OpenBSD is the same as that for Win32. If so, then we could add 'OpenBSD' to the SKIP messages for each. I have never liked that plan -- skipping tests simply because they fail just hides the problem. As a short-term step to keep from being distracted, sure, it's a good strategy. But such sort term fixes tend to become very long-lived, leading folks to forget there even was a problem. If the failing tests themselves are the problem, they should just be deleted. 2. 4 of the tests appear to fail depending on how the OS 'spells' the negation of zero. Could we address this in a hints file? This is a long-standing problem: See [perl #28170] and [perl #30737]. The last time I looked at this, the it seemed we should probably use signbit(), if available. (If it's not available, a fallback is needed, but it's likely to usually be available.) However, I don't know why OpenBSD would differ from NetBSD in this regard. Certainly the math.c platform files are nearly identical. Are the underlying machines and perl5 configurations the same for the NetBSD and OpenBSD tests? The 'myconfig' files from each configuration would be helpful in trying to assess what's the same and what's different. 3. 1 of the tests appears to fail depending on how the OS initial- cases 'Inf'. Again, could this be addressed in a hints file? This too is a long-standing problem: See [perl #19183]. It stalled pending a decision on whether or not parrot should try to enforce a single spelling of 'Inf' (and 'Nan', etc.) or whether the tests should patch over the issue. -- Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[perl #60312] [BUG] OpenBSD Smolder test failures
On Mon Nov 03 09:38:38 2008, doughera wrote: On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, James Keenan wrote: Observations: 1. All 6 of these tests are marked to be skipped on Win32. So perhaps the reason they're failing on OpenBSD is the same as that for Win32. If so, then we could add 'OpenBSD' to the SKIP messages for each. I have never liked that plan -- skipping tests simply because they fail just hides the problem. As a short-term step to keep from being distracted, sure, it's a good strategy. But such sort term fixes tend to become very long-lived, leading folks to forget there even was a problem. Agreed. If the failing tests themselves are the problem, they should just be deleted. 2. 4 of the tests appear to fail depending on how the OS 'spells' the negation of zero. Could we address this in a hints file? This is a long-standing problem: See [perl #28170] and [perl #30737]. Will add links to those tickets from this RT. Are the underlying machines and perl5 configurations the same for the NetBSD and OpenBSD tests? I believe so. I think magnachef has them set up as virtual machines on the same underlying box. He's working on getting me accounts on them and, if that comes through, I'll be able to post Configure.pl and make output. kid51
[perl #60312] [BUG] OpenBSD Smolder test failures
I understand that some of the Parrot developers will be having a confab at Google the weekend after this. Perhaps they could devote some time to discussing the question of how we can recruit to the project some people who are *really* knowledgeable about particular OSes, i.e., porters. I definitely would welcome that for Darwin and OpenBSD, and I'm sure Win32 and other systems as well could use that level of expertise.
Re: [perl #60312] [BUG] OpenBSD Smolder test failures
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, James Keenan via RT wrote: Are the underlying machines and perl5 configurations the same for the NetBSD and OpenBSD tests? I believe so. I think magnachef has them set up as virtual machines on the same underlying box. He's working on getting me accounts on them and, if that comes through, I'll be able to post Configure.pl and make output. Even more immediately useful would be the 'myconfig' info for each configuration. I designed the file to be useful in precisely this sort of situation. -- Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[perl #60312] [BUG] OpenBSD Smolder test failures
# New Ticket Created by James Keenan # Please include the string: [perl #60312] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=60312 Thanks to some automated test reporting setups (which I think are still coming from magnachef), we are getting a steady stream of test reports on the Smolder site from FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD. Of the three, the first two generally pass 100% of tests, but OpenBSD's performance has often been much poorer. Of late, OpenBSD has been passing 99.95% of its tests, which is a clear improvement over just a month ago. So I figured it would probably be good to put all the failures we're still getting on OpenBSD in one place to see if patterns emerge. I want to stress that I have neither experience with, nor access to, OpenBSD. So I have no particular insight into these failures, nor can I directly test patches. As of today, there are 6 tests failing on OpenBSD, as reported on Smolder. 1. t/compilers/imcc/syn/veracity.t - Test #5: pir_output_is( 'CODE', 'OUT', Float NaN ); .sub test :main $N0 = 'NaN' unless $N0 goto not_nan say NaN is true not_nan: end .end CODE NaN is true OUT not ok 5 - Float NaN # Failed test 'Float NaN' # at t/compilers/imcc/syn/veracity.t line 113. # got: '' # expected: 'NaN is true # ' 2. t/op/arithmetics.t - Test #7: not ok 7 - turn a native number into its negative pasm_output_is( 'CODE', OUTPUT, turn a native number into its negative ); set N0, 0 neg N0 print N0 print \n set N0, -0.0 neg N0 print N0 print \n set N0, 123.4567890 neg N0 print N0 print \n set N0, -123.4567890 neg N0 print N0 print \n set N0, 0 set N1, 1 neg N1, N0 print N1 print \n set N0, -0.0 neg N1, N0 print N1 print \n set N0, 123.4567890 neg N1, N0 print N1 print \n set N0, -123.4567890 neg N1, N0 print N1 print \n end CODE -0 0 -123.456789 123.456789 -0 0 -123.456789 123.456789 OUTPUT # Failed test 'turn a native number into its negative' # at t/op/arithmetics.t line 175. # got: '0 # 0 # -123.456789 # 123.456789 # 0 # 0 # -123.456789 # 123.456789 # ' # expected: '-0 # 0 # -123.456789 # 123.456789 # -0 # 0 # -123.456789 # 123.456789 # ' 3,4,5. t/pmc/complex.t - Tests 126, 371, 376 126: .complex_op_is(0+0i, -inf+0.00i, 'ln' ) not ok 126 - ln of 0+0i # Have: -Inf+0.00i # Want: -inf+0.00i 371: .complex_op_is(0-2i, -0.00-0.909297i, 'sinh' ) not ok 371 - sinh of 0-2i # Have: 0.00-0.909297i # Want: -0.00-0.909297i 376: .complex_op_is(0+2i, -0.00+0.909297i, 'sinh' ) not ok 376 - sinh of 0+2i # Have: 0.00+0.909297i # Want: -0.00+0.909297i 6. t/pmc/float.t - Test # 23 not ok 23 - neg 0 pasm_output_like( 'CODE', 'OUTPUT', neg 0 ); new P0, 'Float' set P0, 0.0 neg P0 print P0 end CODE /^-0/ OUTPUT # Failed test 'neg 0' # at t/pmc/float.t line 509. # '0' # doesn't match '/^-0/ # ' Observations: 1. All 6 of these tests are marked to be skipped on Win32. So perhaps the reason they're failing on OpenBSD is the same as that for Win32. If so, then we could add 'OpenBSD' to the SKIP messages for each. 2. 4 of the tests appear to fail depending on how the OS 'spells' the negation of zero. Could we address this in a hints file? 3. 1 of the tests appears to fail depending on how the OS initial- cases 'Inf'. Again, could this be addressed in a hints file? Thank you very much. kid51
