RE: Parrot 0.0.2
Cygwin is fine. Although I still have to change the makefile to get make test to work right. -Original Message- From: Simon Cozens To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10/3/2001 9:55 AM Subject: Parrot 0.0.2 Any objections to a release today? How's Cygwin and Win32 looking? -- I'm a person, not a piece of property. Happily, I'm both! - Lionel and Stephen Harris.
RE: Parrot 0.0.2
Here is the patch to get make test to work on cygwin. There may be a better way to do it. It is actually courtesy of someone else, but I'll have to go look to see who (unless you speak up :) It basically takes test: ...do tests and replaces it with test: dummy dummy: ...do tests so that cygwin really thinks there is something to do. -Original Message- From: Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs To: 'Simon Cozens '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] ' Sent: 10/3/2001 10:12 AM Subject: RE: Parrot 0.0.2 Cygwin is fine. Although I still have to change the makefile to get make test to work right. -Original Message- From: Simon Cozens To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10/3/2001 9:55 AM Subject: Parrot 0.0.2 Any objections to a release today? How's Cygwin and Win32 looking? -- I'm a person, not a piece of property. Happily, I'm both! - Lionel and Stephen Harris. patch.dat
Re: Parrot 0.0.2
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Simon Cozens wrote: On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 03:55:55PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: Any objections to a release today? How's Cygwin and Win32 looking? FWIW, I've just successfully built Parrot on Linux x86, Linux Sparc, Linux IA64, Tru64, Linux Alpha, FreeBSD Alpha, and FreeBSD x86. I'm happy. It's not a core platform, but Linux/Sparc (intvalsize=8) is still not very happy: Failed TestStat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/op/basic.t 2 512 52 40.00% 2 4 t/op/bitwise.t4 1024 44 100.00% 1-4 t/op/integer.t 11 281626 11 42.31% 1-7 21-24 t/op/number.t 1 256251 4.00% 24 t/op/stacks.t 1 256 91 11.11% 1 t/op/string.t 1 256101 10.00% 2 5 subtests skipped. Failed 6/8 test scripts, 25.00% okay. 20/99 subtests failed, 79.80% okay. make: *** [test] Error 29 I also get the same results on a similarly-configured Solaris 8/Sparc system (Solaris SunPro CC). Finally, trying a 32-bit opcode_t and a 64-bit INTVAL, I get Failed TestStat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/op/basic.t 3 768 53 60.00% 2-4 t/op/bitwise.t4 1024 44 100.00% 1-4 t/op/integer.t 26 665626 26 100.00% 1-26 t/op/number.t25 640025 25 100.00% 1-25 t/op/stacks.t 6 1536 96 66.67% 1 3 5 7-9 t/op/string.t 9 2304109 90.00% 1-9 t/op/time.t 2 512 22 100.00% 1-2 t/op/trans.t 18 460818 18 100.00% 1-18 5 subtests skipped. Failed 8/8 test scripts, 0.00% okay. 93/99 subtests failed, 6.06% okay. The failures are very basic. Here's the output from t/op/basic.t: 1..5 ok 1 - noop, end not ok 2 - print 1 # Failed test (Parrot/Test.pm at line 74) # got: '' # expected: '1' not ok 3 - print string # Failed test (Parrot/Test.pm at line 74) # got: 'PackFile_unpack: Illegal constant table segment size 0 (must be multiple of 92)! Warning: Bytecode does not include opcode table fingerprint! Error: Control left bounds of byte-code block (now at location 0)! ' # expected: 'Parrot flies' not ok 4 - branch_ic # Failed test (Parrot/Test.pm at line 74) # got: '' # expected: '42' ok 5 # skip label constants unimplemented in assembler # Looks like you failed 3 tests of 5. -- Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Physics Lafayette College, Easton PA 18042
Re: Parrot 0.0.2
On Wednesday 03 October 2001 11:44 am, Andy Dougherty wrote: Finally, trying a 32-bit opcode_t and a 64-bit INTVAL, I get Mixed sizes are completely hosed. But we need to decide how they should behave before we start randomly applying bandaids. -- Bryan C. Warnock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Parrot 0.0.2
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:44:25AM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: It's not a core platform, but Linux/Sparc (intvalsize=8) is still not very happy: OK; I'll have to check that out. The Sparc I have here has intvalsize=4 by default. -- Contrariwise, continued Tweedledee, if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic! -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
Re: Parrot 0.0.2
On Wed 03 Oct 2001 16:55, Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any objections to a release today? How's Cygwin and Win32 looking? HP-UX 11.00 w/ HP ANSI C -DDEBUGGING -Ae -D_HPUX_SOURCE -I/pro/local/include -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -I./include l1:/pro/3gl/CPAN/parrot 112 make test perl t/harness t/op/basic..ok, 1/5 skipped: label constants unimplemented in assembler t/op/bitwiseok t/op/integerok t/op/number.ok t/op/stacks.ok, 3/9 skipped: various reasons t/op/string.ok, 1/10 skipped: TODO: printing empty string reg segfaults t/op/time...ok t/op/trans..ok All tests successful, 5 subtests skipped. Files=8, Tests=99, 32 wallclock secs (22.42 cusr + 4.59 csys = 27.01 CPU) l1:/pro/3gl/CPAN/parrot 113 -- H.Merijn BrandAmsterdam Perl Mongers (http://www.amsterdam.pm.org/) using perl-5.6.1, 5.7.1 629 on HP-UX 10.20 11.00, AIX 4.2, AIX 4.3, WinNT 4, Win2K pro WinCE 2.11. Smoking perl CORE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] send smoke reports to: [EMAIL PROTECTED], QA: http://qa.perl.org
Re: Parrot 0.0.2
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 05:52:19PM +0200, H. Merijn Brand wrote: HP-UX 11.00 w/ HP ANSI C -DDEBUGGING -Ae -D_HPUX_SOURCE -I/pro/local/include -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -I./include Thanks. Also: $ uname -a SunOS neptune 5.8 Generic_108528-10 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-5_10 How big would you like integers to be? [long] And your floats? [double] What is your native opcode type? [long] -DUSE_LONG_LONG -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 $ /usr/ccs/bin/make test perl t/harness t/op/basic..ok, 1/5 skipped: label constants unimplemented in assembler t/op/bitwiseok t/op/integerok t/op/number.ok t/op/stacks.ok, 3/9 skipped: various reasons t/op/string.ok, 1/11 skipped: TODO: printing empty string reg segfaults t/op/time...ok t/op/trans..ok All tests successful, 5 subtests skipped. Files=8, Tests=100, 34 wallclock secs (25.38 cusr + 6.98 csys = 32.36 CPU) $ This is looking releasable. -- dhd even though I know what a 'one time pad' is, it still sounds like a feminine hygiene product.
[PATCH] printf bandaids (Was Re: Parrot 0.0.2)
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:44:25AM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
It's not a core platform, but Linux/Sparc (intvalsize=8) is still not
very happy:
OK; I'll have to check that out. The Sparc I have here has intvalsize=4
by default.
Perhaps I'm too daring running bleadperl by default :-).
Anyway, the following bandaid results in the following happy output:
t/op/basic..ok, 1/5 skipped: label constants unimplemented in assembler
t/op/bitwiseok
t/op/integerok
t/op/number.ok
t/op/stacks.ok, 3/9 skipped: various reasons
t/op/string.ok, 1/10 skipped: TODO: printing empty string reg segfaults
t/op/time...ok
t/op/trans..ok
All tests successful, 5 subtests skipped.
Files=8, Tests=99, 160 wallclock secs (149.65 cusr + 9.88 csys = 159.53 CPU)
Here's the patch. It's a bandaid (but a pretty good one). What we really
need to do is figure out the correct printf format string for printing out
an INTVAL. Fortunately, perl5.7.x's Configure already does some of this
for us.
Not all the casts may be necessary. I used a rather brute force approach
:-).
diff -r -u parrot/basic_opcodes.ops parrot-andy/basic_opcodes.ops
--- parrot/basic_opcodes.opsTue Oct 2 10:01:30 2001
+++ parrot-andy/basic_opcodes.ops Wed Oct 3 11:40:25 2001
@@ -145,12 +145,12 @@
/* PRINT Ix */
AUTO_OP print_i {
- printf(%li, INT_REG(P1));
+ printf(%li, (long) INT_REG(P1));
}
/* PRINT ic */
AUTO_OP print_ic {
- printf(%li, P1);
+ printf(%li, (long) P1);
}
diff -r -u parrot/interpreter.c parrot-andy/interpreter.c
--- parrot/interpreter.cWed Oct 3 10:51:07 2001
+++ parrot-andy/interpreter.c Wed Oct 3 11:36:44 2001
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@
fprintf(stderr, ; ARGS=();
for(i = 0; i op_args[*pc]; i++) {
if (i) { fprintf(stderr, , ); }
-fprintf(stderr, %ld, *(pc + i + 1));
+fprintf(stderr, %ld, (long) *(pc + i + 1));
}
fprintf(stderr, ));
}
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@
pc = core(interpreter);
if (pc code_start || pc = code_end) {
-fprintf(stderr, Error: Control left bounds of byte-code block (now at
location %d)!\n, pc - code_start);
+fprintf(stderr, Error: Control left bounds of byte-code block (now at
+location %d)!\n, (int) (pc - code_start));
exit(1);
}
}
diff -r -u parrot/packfile.c parrot-andy/packfile.c
--- parrot/packfile.c Tue Oct 2 10:01:30 2001
+++ parrot-andy/packfile.c Wed Oct 3 11:38:05 2001
@@ -1679,7 +1679,7 @@
break;
case PFC_INTEGER:
-printf([ 'PFC_INTEGER', %ld ],\n, self-integer);
+printf([ 'PFC_INTEGER', %ld ],\n, (long) self-integer);
break;
case PFC_NUMBER:
@@ -1689,9 +1689,9 @@
case PFC_STRING:
printf([ 'PFC_STRING', {\n);
printf(FLAGS= 0x%04x,\n, self-string-flags);
-printf(ENCODING = %ld,\n, self-string-encoding-which);
-printf(TYPE = %ld,\n, self-string-type);
-printf(SIZE = %ld,\n, self-string-bufused);
+printf(ENCODING = %ld,\n, (long)
+self-string-encoding-which);
+printf(TYPE = %ld,\n, (long) self-string-type);
+printf(SIZE = %ld,\n, (long) self-string-bufused);
printf(DATA = '%s'\n, self-string-bufstart); /* TODO:
Not a good idea in general */
printf(} ],\n);
break;
--
Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dept. of Physics
Lafayette College, Easton PA 18042
RE: Parrot 0.0.2
Simon Cozens: # Any objections to a release today? How's Cygwin and Win32 looking? Win2K non-Cygwin is looking a little sick to its stomach: Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195] (C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp. C:\Brent\Visual Studio Projects\Perl 6\parrot\parrotpmake test Reading C:/Perl/site/lib/Make.pm Reading C:\Brent\Visual Studio Projects\Perl 6\parrot\parrot\makefile C:\Perl\bin\perl.exe t/harness t/op/basic..ok, 1/5 skipped: label constants unimplemented in assembler t/op/bitwiseok t/op/integerok t/op/number.ok t/op/stacks.NOK 5# Failed test (Parrot/Test.pm at line 74) # got: 'Seem to have negative Nx not ok ' # expected: 'Seem to have negative Nx Seem to have positive Nx after pop ' t/op/stacks.ok 9/9# Looks like you failed 1 tests of 9. t/op/stacks.dubious Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) DIED. FAILED test 5 Failed 1/9 tests, 88.89% okay (-3 skipped tests: 5 okay, 55.56%) t/op/string.NOK 4# Failed test (Parrot/Test.pm at line 74) # got: 'Error: Control left bounds of byte-code block (now at location 31)! ng ** ' # expected: 'A string of length 21 A string of lengt A string of lengt ** nothing ** ' t/op/string.ok 11/11# Looks like you failed 1 tests of 11. t/op/string.dubious Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) DIED. FAILED test 4 Failed 1/11 tests, 90.91% okay (-1 skipped test: 9 okay, 81.82%) t/op/time...NOK 2# Failed test (Parrot/Test.pm at line 74) # got: 'failure ' # expected: 'ok, (!= 1970) Grateful Dead not ok, (nowbefore) timelords need not apply ' # Looks like you failed 1 tests of 2. t/op/time...dubious Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) DIED. FAILED test 2 Failed 1/2 tests, 50.00% okay t/op/trans..ok Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/op/stacks.t1 256 91 11.11% 5 t/op/string.t1 256111 9.09% 4 t/op/time.t 1 256 21 50.00% 2 5 subtests skipped. Failed 3/8 test scripts, 62.50% okay. 3/100 subtests failed, 97.00% okay. --Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED] Configure pumpking for Perl 6 They *will* pay for what they've done.
Re: Parrot 0.0.2
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:39:32AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote: Win2K non-Cygwin is looking a little sick to its stomach: Dammit. There had to be a show-stopper, didn't there? -- The Blit is a nice terminal, but it runs emacs.
Re: Parrot 0.0.2
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
FWIW, Linux/x86 long long/long double/long long has a few glitches.
That's a good test platform because sizeof(long double) is 12 there, while
sizeof(long long) is 8, but Parrot/Opcode.pm still seems to assume
$nvivsize = $PConfig{numvalsize}/$PConfig{intvalsize}
is an integer. I put that in, so I know it's wrong :-).
Sparc probably won't show the same effect, since sizeof(long double) there
is either 8 (Sparc/Linux) or 16 (Sparc/Solaris), so nvivsize is still an
integer there.
--
Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dept. of Physics
Lafayette College, Easton PA 18042
Re: Parrot 0.0.2
Simon -- Any objections to a release today? How's Cygwin and Win32 looking? I'm about to post a patch that fixes macros in the assembler, and along the way adds label arithmetic, which allows t/basic.t to have all tests enabled (and passing). I'd like to have a working macro facility in the assembler for 0.0.2, please. Have a look at my forthcoming message. Regards, -- Gregor _ / perl -e 'srand(-2091643526); print chr rand 90 for (0..4)' \ Gregor N. Purdy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Focus Research, Inc.http://www.focusresearch.com/ 8080 Beckett Center Drive #203 513-860-3570 vox West Chester, OH 45069 513-860-3579 fax \_/
Re: Parrot 0.0.2
OK, let's try and clear this up. On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:39:32AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote: # got: 'Seem to have negative Nx not ok ' # expected: 'Seem to have negative Nx Seem to have positive Nx after pop ' Don't know what's going on here. t/op/string.NOK 4# Failed test (Parrot/Test.pm at line 74) # got: 'Error: Control left bounds of byte-code block (now at location 31)! There isn't an end on that test. Fixed. # got: 'failure ' Since there was no other output, this failed: timeI0 ge I0, 0, OK1 Now that's anyone's guess. I've added some debugging prints, can you try a resync? -- We use Linux for all our mission-critical applications. Having the source code means that we are not held hostage by anyone's support department. (Russell Nelson, President of Crynwr Software)
Re: Parrot 0.0.2
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:53:40PM -0400, Gregor N. Purdy wrote: I'd like to have a working macro facility in the assembler for 0.0.2, please. Don't worry, Windows being broken has bought you some time... -- In space 'cat scream.au | tee /dev/null /dev/audio'... - Ben, in the monastery.
Re: Parrot 0.0.2
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 05:51:14PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: # got: 'Seem to have negative Nx not ok # expected: 'Seem to have negative Nx Seem to have positive Nx after pop So pop_n is broken on Win32. Did you see any compiler warnings in the stacks code? -- perl -le 'print (@) - $; +$ (- % _); * *+* *'
Re: Parrot 0.0.2
Simon -- Don't worry, Windows being broken has bought you some time... I don't really need time (since its done). But, I'll take this as go ahead and commit it when you're ready (which is now). Regards, -- Gregor _ / perl -e 'srand(-2091643526); print chr rand 90 for (0..4)' \ Gregor N. Purdy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Focus Research, Inc.http://www.focusresearch.com/ 8080 Beckett Center Drive #203 513-860-3570 vox West Chester, OH 45069 513-860-3579 fax \_/
RE: Parrot 0.0.2
Simon Cozens: # On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 05:51:14PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: # # got: 'Seem to have negative Nx # not ok # # expected: 'Seem to have negative Nx # Seem to have positive Nx after pop # # So pop_n is broken on Win32. Did you see any compiler warnings # in the stacks code? Nope. No warnings at all (which is better than I can say for bleadperl :^) ). --Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED] Configure pumpking for Perl 6 They *will* pay for what they've done.
RE: Parrot 0.0.2
--Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED] Configure pumpking for Perl 6 They *will* pay for what they've done. # -Original Message- # From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] # Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 09:51 # To: Brent Dax # Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] # Subject: Re: Parrot 0.0.2 # # # OK, let's try and clear this up. # # On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:39:32AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote: # # got: 'Seem to have negative Nx # not ok # ' # # expected: 'Seem to have negative Nx # Seem to have positive Nx after pop # ' # # Don't know what's going on here. # # t/op/string.NOK 4# Failed test (Parrot/Test.pm at line 74) # # got: 'Error: Control left bounds of byte-code # block (now at # location # 31)! # # There isn't an end on that test. Fixed. # # # got: 'failure # ' # # Since there was no other output, this failed: # timeI0 # ge I0, 0, OK1 # # Now that's anyone's guess. # # I've added some debugging prints, can you try a resync? I tried it and ended up with something weird: C:\Brent\Visual Studio Projects\Perl 6\parrot\parrotpmake test Reading C:/Perl/site/lib/Make.pm Reading C:\Brent\Visual Studio Projects\Perl 6\parrot\parrot\makefile C:\Perl\bin\perl.exe t/harness t/op/basic..ok t/op/bitwiseok t/op/integerok t/op/number.ok t/op/stacks.NOK 5# Failed test (Parrot/Test.pm at line 74) # got: 'Seem to have negative Nx not ok ' (etc, as before) Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/op/stacks.t1 256 91 11.11% 5 t/op/time.t 1 256 21 50.00% 2 4 subtests skipped. Failed 2/8 test scripts, 75.00% okay. 2/100 subtests failed, 98.00% okay. Code 65280 from C:\Perl\bin\perl.exe t/harness at C:/Perl/site/lib/Make.pm line 265. C:\Brent\Visual Studio Projects\Perl 6\parrot\parrotperl t/harness t/op/basic..ok t/op/bitwiseok t/op/integerok t/op/number.ok t/op/stacks.ok, 3/9 skipped: various reasons t/op/string.ok, 1/11 skipped: TODO: printing empty string reg segfaults t/op/time...ok t/op/trans..ok All tests successful, 4 subtests skipped. Files=8, Tests=100, 32 wallclock secs ( 0.00 cusr + 0.00 csys = 0.00 CPU) Weird, huh? If I use nmake /a (forces it to do test, even though it thinks test is up to date) instead of pmake, I get the same output as pmake. This is pretty spooky...
RE: Parrot 0.0.2
--- Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED] Configure pumpking for Perl 6 They *will* pay for what they've done. # -Original Message- # From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] # Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 09:51 # To: Brent Dax # Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] # Subject: Re: Parrot 0.0.2 # # # OK, let's try and clear this up. # # On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:39:32AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote: # # got: 'Seem to have negative Nx # not ok # ' # # expected: 'Seem to have negative Nx # Seem to have positive Nx after pop # ' # # Don't know what's going on here. # # t/op/string.NOK 4# Failed test (Parrot/Test.pm at line 74) # # got: 'Error: Control left bounds of byte-code # block (now at # location # 31)! # # There isn't an end on that test. Fixed. # # # got: 'failure # ' # # Since there was no other output, this failed: # timeI0 # ge I0, 0, OK1 # # Now that's anyone's guess. # # I've added some debugging prints, can you try a resync? I resynced at 3:05pm EDT today, and I'm seeing the same errors (Pentium III, Win2k): C:\parrotperl t/harness t/op/basic..ok t/op/bitwiseok t/op/integerok t/op/number.ok t/op/stacks.NOK 5# Failed test (Parrot/Test.pm at line 74) # got: 'Seem to have negative Nx not ok ' # expected: 'Seem to have negative Nx Seem to have positive Nx after pop ' t/op/stacks.ok 9/9# Looks like you failed 1 tests of 9. t/op/stacks.dubious Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) DIED. FAILED test 5 Failed 1/9 tests, 88.89% okay (-3 skipped tests: 5 okay, 55.56%) t/op/string.ok, 1/11 skipped: TODO: printing empty string reg segfaults t/op/time...NOK 2# Failed test (Parrot/Test.pm at line 74) # got: 'failure ' # expected: 'ok, (!= 1970) Grateful Dead not ok, (nowbefore) timelords need not apply ' # Looks like you failed 1 tests of 2. t/op/time...dubious Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) DIED. FAILED test 2 Failed 1/2 tests, 50.00% okay t/op/trans..ok Failed Test Status Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed t/op/stacks.t 1 256 91 11.11% 5 t/op/time.t1 256 21 50.00% 2 4 subtests skipped. Failed 2/8 test scripts, 75.00% okay. 2/100 subtests failed, 98.00% okay. -- BKS __ Do You Yahoo!? NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
Re: Parrot 0.0.2
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:08:54PM -0700, Benjamin Stuhl wrote: # got: 'failure ' What no debugging print output? -- We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when it's necessary to compromise. -- Larry Wall
Re: Parrot 0.0.2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Cozens) writes: Any objections to a release today? How's Cygwin and Win32 looking? except that `make test` always just tells me tat `test' is up to date, then both cygwin and darwin looks good. - ask -- ask bjoern hansen, http://ask.netcetera.dk/ !try; do();
