At Wed, 28 Sep 2011 18:12:34 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > At Wed, 28 Sep 2011 21:02:14 +0100, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> >> Errors were:
> >> (Section (got expected (call)))
> >> ((date) ((638931660) Error (find-seconds 0 1 2 1 4 1990)))
> >
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Wed, 28 Sep 2011 21:02:14 +0100, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>> Errors were:
>> (Section (got expected (call)))
>> ((date) ((638931660) Error (find-seconds 0 1 2 1 4 1990)))
>
> After looking into this, I conclude that the test is faulty, but th
At Wed, 28 Sep 2011 21:02:14 +0100, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Errors were:
> (Section (got expected (call)))
> ((date) ((638931660) Error (find-seconds 0 1 2 1 4 1990)))
After looking into this, I conclude that the test is faulty, but that
it also highlights a bug/limitation on Windows:
* The test
The `with-limit' test is not completely deterministic. It's looking for
an out-of-memory exception, and you got an out-of-time exception,
instead. That sometimes happens if the machine is loaded or otherwise
distracted.
The `find-seconds' test may be wrong or it may be a bug. I see it for
64-bit b
...if you're not used to them, that is.
Hi,
I am running the racket tests to know if something went wrong with my
fork of racket. The fork was done at tag 2ef9f5ae.
I run the tests with from the install directory with:
,
| racket$ bin/racket -r ./collects/tests/racket/quiet.rktl
`
Attac
5 matches
Mail list logo
