Will Coleda wrote:
Leo mentions on IRC that some tests are failing on i386 and OSX 10.3
(10.2?). I'm passing 100% on OSX 10.4.
After looking up and down in the sources and in tons of traces spit out
by the tcl interpreter I eventually tracked down the bug. It was due to
destroying exceptio
I reran the tests on an x86 box. I had to killall parrot three times
and one test killed itself from memory exhaustion. Is it just a
coincidence that all the platforms with jit are failing these tests?
The failures in t/tcl_glob are particularly interesting. The first
failure I did a `killall p
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: perl6-internals@perl.org
Sent: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:01:51 -0400
Subject: Re: tcl in leo-ctx5
Can you repost directions/configs, etc?
Thanks!
On Sep 13, 2005, at 2:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The tinderbox I setup about 6 months ago probably/possibly still
Message-
From: Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Internals List
Sent: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:54:17 -0400
Subject: Re: tcl in leo-ctx5
Leo mentions on IRC that some tests are failing on i386 and OSX
10.3 (10.2?). I'm passing 100% on OSX 10.4.
Can we get some test results on ot
-0400
Subject: Re: tcl in leo-ctx5
Leo mentions on IRC that some tests are failing on i386 and OSX 10.3 (10.2?).
I'm passing 100% on OSX 10.4.
Can we get some test results on other various platforms? (Do we have a
tinderbox again yet?)
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Matt Diephouse wrote:
> Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Leo mentions on IRC that some tests are failing on i386 and OSX 10.3
> > (10.2?). I'm passing 100% on OSX 10.4.
> >
> > Can we get some test results on other various platforms? (Do we have
> > a tinderbox agai
Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leo mentions on IRC that some tests are failing on i386 and OSX 10.3
> (10.2?). I'm passing 100% on OSX 10.4.
>
> Can we get some test results on other various platforms? (Do we have
> a tinderbox again yet?)
Not so good here either:
Failed Test Stat
Not so great on this end.
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
---
t/cmd_array.t 4 1024454 8.89% 27-30
t/cmd_break.t 2 512 22 100.00% 1-2
t/cmd_continue.t2
--
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 04:54:17PM -0400, Will Coleda wrote:
> Leo mentions on IRC that some tests are failing on i386 and OSX 10.3
> (10.2?). I'm passing 100% on OSX 10.4.
>
> Can we get some test results on other various platforms? (Do we have
> a tinderbox again yet?)
Tested with r9190.
Leo mentions on IRC that some tests are failing on i386 and OSX 10.3
(10.2?). I'm passing 100% on OSX 10.4.
Can we get some test results on other various platforms? (Do we have
a tinderbox again yet?)
After building parrot, "cd languages/tcl && make test" should be
sufficient. Warning: le
Ok. Workarounds removed (though the workarounds were working. =-)
Looks like I've fixed PGE's glob - looks like it was just removing
the 'compile' opcode. Amos is going to investigate writing a test
suite for that at the parrot level.
Also fixed all the other conversion issues: tcl is now p
Will Coleda wrote:
But it looks like the PMC args are getting *switched* somehow. looking
at the stack trace below starting just before the tailcall:
This bug is fixed now (r9173), the proposed workaround isn't needed anymore.
Thanks for investigating and testing.
leo
On Aug 29, 2005, at 19:28, Will Coleda wrote:
Next big issue with tcl in leo-ctx5 seems to be PGE's glob (A quick
check shows no tests for glob, which is probably why this fell through
the cracks.) Below, find a short PIR snippet that demonstrates the
problem. in trunk, it prints:
751
Will Coleda wrote:
But it looks like the PMC args are getting *switched* somehow. looking
at the stack trace below starting just before the tailcall:
I've now located the problem, but I can't fix it right now. It is a bit
non-trivial. The bug isn't related to tailcalls at all, which mislead
14 matches
Mail list logo
