headers
Raymond Toy | 1 Mar 2011 15:20
Picon

Mar snapshot tagged

The March snapshot has been tagged and binaries will be uploaded soon.

Two major fixes are included here.

Cmucl was not recognizing #\latin_small_letter_a as a valid character.
This has been fixed.

An issue with sse2 with constant folding SQRT has been fixed.

Ray

_______________________________________________
cmucl-imp mailing list
cmucl-imp <at> cmucl.cons.org
http://lists.zs64.net/mailman/listinfo/cmucl-imp
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Didier Verna | 9 Mar 2011 17:30
X-Face
Face
Picon
Picon
Picon
Picon
Gravatar

[Final CfPart] European Lisp Symposium, Hamburg, March 31 - April 1


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

		     4th European Lisp Symposium
	      Special Focus on Parallelism & Efficiency

		      March 31 - April 1st, 2011
		TUHH, Hamburg University of Technology
			   Hamburg, Germany

	       http://www.european-lisp-symposium.org/

Sponsors: EPITA, TUHH, Lispworks, Franz Inc., NovaSparks and Freiheit

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

News:
~~~~~
* The final program is now online.
* The early registration deadline is in 3 days, so hurry!
  Registration will still be possible afterwards.

Invited Speakers:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Craig Zilles -- Compiling for the common case
Marc Battyani -- Reconfigurable computing on steroids
Apostolos Syropoulos -- Scala: an OO surprise

Scope
~~~~~~
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Douglas Crosher | 23 Mar 2011 11:41
Favicon

compile-file return values?


While check the ASDF 2 tests it appears that CMUCL may not be returning the expected value for the second
return value of 
'compile-file.  The standard appears to state that the second value should be true if there are
style-warnings, warnings, or errors. 
  However CMUCL ignores style-warnings.  This appears to be a regression, as it had been:
(not (null error-severity))

Regards
Douglas Crosher
_______________________________________________
cmucl-imp mailing list
cmucl-imp <at> cmucl.cons.org
http://lists.zs64.net/mailman/listinfo/cmucl-imp
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Raymond Toy | 24 Mar 2011 18:40
Picon

Re: compile-file return values?

>>>>> "Douglas" == Douglas Crosher <dtc-cmucl <at> scieneer.com> writes:

    Douglas> While check the ASDF 2 tests it appears that CMUCL may
    Douglas> not be returning the expected value for the second return
    Douglas> value of 'compile-file.  The standard appears to state
    Douglas> that the second value should be true if there are
    Douglas> style-warnings, warnings, or errors. However CMUCL
    Douglas> ignores style-warnings.  This appears to be a regression,
    Douglas> as it had been: (not (null error-severity))

Hi Douglas!  

Thanks for the note.  Can you tell me which asdf2 test complains about
this.  

A check of the commit logs doesn't provide any information about why
this was changed. (It happened when adding support for package locks.)

Ray

_______________________________________________
cmucl-imp mailing list
cmucl-imp <at> cmucl.cons.org
http://lists.zs64.net/mailman/listinfo/cmucl-imp
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Douglas Crosher | 25 Mar 2011 04:50
Favicon

Re: compile-file return values?

Hi Ray,

The test file asdf/test/compile-asdf.lisp tries to catch compile errors and warnings including some style-warnings.

I propose using the c::brevity extension to suppress the efficiency notes and then check the second value
returned by compile-file. 
  For example:

(proclaim '(optimize (speed 2) (safety 3) #-allegro (debug 3)
	    #+(or scl cmu) (c::brevity 2)))

However this does not work on the current cmucl because the second value returned does not include
style-warnings, so unused 
variable warnings etc are not caught in this test.

The ANSI-CL standard suggests that the second return value should be true for style-warnings, as well as
other warnings and errors, 
so the original cmucl code seems right to me.

Perhaps there was some other issue here.

Regards
Douglas Crosher

On 25/03/11 04:40, Raymond Toy wrote:
>>>>>> "Douglas" == Douglas Crosher<dtc-cmucl <at> scieneer.com>  writes:
>
>      Douglas>  While check the ASDF 2 tests it appears that CMUCL may
>      Douglas>  not be returning the expected value for the second return
>      Douglas>  value of 'compile-file.  The standard appears to state
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Raymond Toy | 26 Mar 2011 22:21
Picon

Re: compile-file return values?

>>>>> "Douglas" == Douglas Crosher <dtc-cmucl <at> scieneer.com> writes:

    Douglas> I propose using the c::brevity extension to suppress the
    Douglas> efficiency notes and then check the second value returned
    Douglas> by compile-file. For example:

    Douglas> (proclaim '(optimize (speed 2) (safety 3) #-allegro
    Douglas> (debug 3)
    Douglas> 	    #+(or scl cmu) (c::brevity 2)))

This seems ok, but why these particular compiler settings used?  These
aren't the default for cmucl.

    Douglas> However this does not work on the current cmucl because
    Douglas> the second value returned does not include
    Douglas> style-warnings, so unused variable warnings etc are not
    Douglas> caught in this test.

    Douglas> The ANSI-CL standard suggests that the second return
    Douglas> value should be true for style-warnings, as well as other
    Douglas> warnings and errors, so the original cmucl code seems
    Douglas> right to me.

    Douglas> Perhaps there was some other issue here.

I agree with your analysis; style warnings are counted as warnings.

I'll make the suggested change soon.  I vaguely remember some issues
with this long ago, and I thought they show up in the ansi-tests, but
I tested the snapshot version with a version with your suggested
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Douglas Crosher | 27 Mar 2011 07:51
Favicon

Re: compile-file return values?

Hi Ray,

Thank you for the change. When this is out I'll look at updating the ASDF test.

On 27/03/11 08:21, Raymond Toy wrote:
>>>>>> "Douglas" == Douglas Crosher<dtc-cmucl <at> scieneer.com>  writes:
>
>      Douglas>  I propose using the c::brevity extension to suppress the
>      Douglas>  efficiency notes and then check the second value returned
>      Douglas>  by compile-file. For example:
>
>      Douglas>  (proclaim '(optimize (speed 2) (safety 3) #-allegro
>      Douglas>  (debug 3)
>      Douglas>  	#+(or scl cmu) (c::brevity 2)))
>
> This seems ok, but why these particular compiler settings used?  These
> aren't the default for cmucl.

These setting are from the ASDF test, with the c::brevity added to avoid
compiler efficiency notes (which are style-warnings in CMUCL) from causing
the test to fail.

I understand the test would like to catch many style-warnings, such as
unused variables, and that the test should fail if these are found.

>
>      Douglas>  However this does not work on the current cmucl because
>      Douglas>  the second value returned does not include
>      Douglas>  style-warnings, so unused variable warnings etc are not
>      Douglas>  caught in this test.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Raymond Toy | 28 Mar 2011 14:08
Picon

Re: compile-file return values?

>>>>> "Douglas" == Douglas Crosher <dtc-cmucl <at> scieneer.com> writes:

    Douglas> Hi Ray, Thank you for the change. When this is out I'll
    Douglas> look at updating the ASDF test.

Done.  It will be available in the next snapshot, due in a week or
two.

Thanks for the report and the fix,

Ray

_______________________________________________
cmucl-imp mailing list
cmucl-imp <at> cmucl.cons.org
http://lists.zs64.net/mailman/listinfo/cmucl-imp
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane