2 Jun 2008 19:11
linux ppc build problem
I built factor on an old G3 ibook that runs Ubuntu Gutsy. When I started factor from the command line, I noticed a couple of issues:
1. There were several buttons at the top of the gui that lacked any text. They appear to have functionality but no text on them identifying what they do.
2. When I type in the gui, the current character under the cursor is always wrong. For example, if I type a 1, it displays as something else, until I type a space after it, at which time it becomes a 1.
Then I opened up the cookbook and ran into another issue: following the basic syntax cookbook, I typed 10 sq 5 - .
Instead of 95, I got 99 as the result. Just for fun, I tried reversing the numbers and typed 5 sq 10 - . This time I got -99
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
Developer A writes the following code:
GENERIC: a ( x -- y )
GENERIC: c ( x -- y )
Developer B writes the following code:
: b ... a ... ; ! no stack effect declaration -- but it's not recursive!
M: foo c ... b ... ;
Developer C writes this:
M: bar a ... c ... ;
Wham, suddenly 'b' is recursive, because we have a cycle in the
control flow graph: a -> c -> b -> a, which didn't exist before! But
developer C doesn't care about the word 'b', they may not know it
exists even, but they just broke it.
This scenario is not contrieved; it comes up in extra/ from time to
time. Someone will add some code which defines a bunch of methods,
then suddenly the compiler starts complaining about some totally
random word being recursive and needing a stack effect, such as this
word from calendar.format:
: YYYY year>> write-0000 ;
Surely it doesn't look recursive, but there is some path through the
call graph where write-0000 calls write, which calls some low-level
Unix I/O code, which somehow calls back into the calendar code...
To make matters worse, it doesn't _always_ complain about a word
needing a stack effect declaration. Sometimes things work out just
fine and it gets along without hitting the code path where it needs
the declaration to be there. So what we have here is that some guy
makes an innocent-looking change to the code, and at some undetermined
point in the future, a totally unrelated word may stop compiling.
The technical term for languages with such features is "toy
language" 
Since my plan is to use Factor to take over the world and get
disgustingly rich, this is not an acceptable state of affairs. There
are two solutions:
1) Revive the old stack effect inference algorithm which did not
require annotations at all.
2) Require stack effect declarations on all words except for the most
trivial ones which only push literals on the stack
I don't want to do #1 because the old algorithm was more complex, both
in terms of code and run time. So that leaves us with #2. I don't mind
having to annotate more words, what do you guys think?
Slava
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
RSS Feed