On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 03:33:59PM +0200, Armin Rigo wrote: > Hi Aurelien, > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 12:21:52PM +0200, Aur?lien Camp?as wrote: > > First, I did some (superficial, nothing related to the translation > > aspect itself) changes that allowed me to build a (somewhat > > non-crashing) translated pypy-logic using clonable coroutines. > > I did not look closely, so I cannot comment, but it seems to me that the > tests and the demo we fixed during the post-EuroPython sprint all > translated correctly, so I'm a bit surprized that you had to hack so > much on the existing stackless code only for translatability > reasons.
svn blame currently shows how incredibly little I had to play with the code (to break it ... and have it fit my needs, and later make it translatable again). Apart from some temporary uncautious changes in interp_clonable from which one can trace back the first breakage, and that were fixed since, there is something else going on, that happened some time after. The current breakage is, I think, unrelated to my misdoings. This fact is just masked by the insufficient granularity of http://snake.cs.uni-duesseldorf.de/pypytest/summary.html. I am tracking every change concerning stackless, now. Then, again, please consider that the current module/_stackless tests fail at RUNTIME. They translate perfectly well. > > This said, there were not many tests so far. That's also why I'm not > happy to see half of them fail nowadays. The "agreed" development > procedure for PyPy is to write more tests when a bug is identified or > existing code doesn't translate in some context, and then make the test > pass without breaking the previous tests (which are all valid, so again > I'm surprized that you can compile anything at all when half of the > basic tests fail). I am surprised, too. But I can exhibit the binary :) Regards, Aurélien. _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
