headers
Ralf Juengling | 1 Oct 2009 01:18
Picon

nasty compiler bug


I just stumbled across the bug exhibited by the code
below. Strange that this has gone undetected for so long.

Ralf

(defclass C object
   ((-int-) count) )

(defmethod C C (i)
   (declare (-int-) i)
   (setq count i)
   ())

(defmethod C incr ()
   (incr count)
   (incr count)
   ())

(defmethod C do ()
   (let ((count0 count))
     (declare (-int-) count0)
     (==> this incr)
     (printf "%d\n" (- count count0)) )
   ())

(let ((obj (new C 1)))
   (==> obj do) )

(dhc-make ()
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ralf Juengling | 19 Oct 2009 07:14
Picon

ANN: Lush 2.0 beta release

Folks, a first Lush 2.0 beta release is out.
Download: https://sourceforge.net/projects/lush/files

Many changes have been made since the last Lush 1.x release
that will facilitate future development. But there are also
a number of visible changes and Lush 2.0 is not fully backward
compatible. The differences include:
- Lush 2.x is case-sensitive
- outdated packages have been dropped (HTK, Torch, and others)
- many functions have been renamed (see namespace lush1-)

Some things are currently broken, including
- the make-standalone facility
- some outdated packages (video4linux, sn28, and others)
- support for complex numbers

New features include
- builtin math functions work on arrays
- a namespace facility
- a small datatype library (heap, sets, graph)
- a gnuplot interface

Have fun,
Ralf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Aleksej Saushev | 19 Oct 2009 09:24
Picon

Re: ANN: Lush 2.0 beta release

Ralf Juengling <juenglin <at> cs.pdx.edu> writes:

> Folks, a first Lush 2.0 beta release is out.

fpu.c:42:18: error: fenv.h: No such file or directory
fpu.c:58: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before 'standard_fenv'
fpu.c: In function 'ywith_fpu_env':
fpu.c:143: error: 'fenv_t' undeclared (first use in this function)
fpu.c:143: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
fpu.c:143: error: for each function it appears in.)
fpu.c:143: error: expected ';' before 'current_fenv'
fpu.c:145: warning: implicit declaration of function 'fegetenv'
fpu.c:145: error: 'saved_fenv' undeclared (first use in this function)
fpu.c:147: error: 'standard_fenv' undeclared (first use in this function)
fpu.c:152: warning: implicit declaration of function 'fesetenv'
fpu.c: In function 'parse_excepts':
fpu.c:175: error: 'FE_INVALID' undeclared (first use in this function)
fpu.c:179: error: 'FE_DIVBYZERO' undeclared (first use in this function)
fpu.c:183: error: 'FE_OVERFLOW' undeclared (first use in this function)
fpu.c:187: error: 'FE_UNDERFLOW' undeclared (first use in this function)
fpu.c:191: error: 'FE_INEXACT' undeclared (first use in this function)
fpu.c:195: error: 'FE_ALL_EXCEPT' undeclared (first use in this function)
fpu.c: In function 'unparse_excepts':
fpu.c:209: error: 'FE_INEXACT' undeclared (first use in this function)
fpu.c:212: error: 'FE_UNDERFLOW' undeclared (first use in this function)
fpu.c:215: error: 'FE_OVERFLOW' undeclared (first use in this function)
fpu.c:218: error: 'FE_DIVBYZERO' undeclared (first use in this function)
fpu.c:221: error: 'FE_INVALID' undeclared (first use in this function)
fpu.c: In function 'xfpu_test':
fpu.c:291: warning: implicit declaration of function 'fetestexcept'
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Raymond Martin | 19 Oct 2009 16:16
Picon

Re: ANN: Lush 2.0 beta release

On October 19, 2009 01:14:37 am Ralf Juengling wrote:
> Folks, a first Lush 2.0 beta release is out.
> Download: https://sourceforge.net/projects/lush/files

Yeah, how did this end up under LGPL?

If any of the previous GPL code from older Lush has been used then you cannot
change it to LGPL unless you get permission from everybody who contributed
code to those parts. I contributed a small little bit, plus some documentation
and was never asked about this and did not see anything on the lists, IIRC.

I remember in the past asking about certain licenses and such and being
told by Leon that it would be almost impossible to contact people that
had contributed. So on that basis, it looks like this is a license violation,
not to mention a violation of the copyrights of all those contributors.

And, in fact, I see from the COPYRIGHT file and the headers in all the C
files that this is definitely a license violation. There was never a LGPL 2
as stated in those. The Lesser LGPL started at version 2.1. Seems you have
just added the word "Lesser" in place.

This immediately invalidates any license claim and means you must cease
distribution of this package until this situation is rectified (revert back to 
GPL).

Raymond

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Yann LeCun | 19 Oct 2009 16:28
Picon

Re: ANN: Lush 2.0 beta release

Raymond,

We actually got persmission from all the people we could think of.

We think a lot more people would use Lush in industrial contexts
if we switched to the LGPL.

We knew you contributed to the documentation, which is really not
affected by the license, but I guess we overlooked your contributions
to the code.

Would you give your permission for the switch, as far as your
contributions are concerned?  If not, we will just take out your
contributions, but that would be a shame.

Thanks,

  -- Yann

On Monday 19 October 2009, Raymond Martin wrote:
> On October 19, 2009 01:14:37 am Ralf Juengling wrote:
> > Folks, a first Lush 2.0 beta release is out.
> > Download: https://sourceforge.net/projects/lush/files
>
> Yeah, how did this end up under LGPL?
>
> If any of the previous GPL code from older Lush has been used then you
> cannot change it to LGPL unless you get permission from everybody who
> contributed code to those parts. I contributed a small little bit, plus
> some documentation and was never asked about this and did not see anything
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Raymond Martin | 19 Oct 2009 17:14
Picon

Re: ANN: Lush 2.0 beta release

Yann

> We actually got persmission from all the people we could think of.
> 
> We think a lot more people would use Lush in industrial contexts
> if we switched to the LGPL.
> 
> We knew you contributed to the documentation, which is really not
> affected by the license, but I guess we overlooked your contributions
> to the code.
> 
> Would you give your permission for the switch, as far as your
> contributions are concerned?  If not, we will just take out your
> contributions, but that would be a shame.

I have no problem with giving permission. Although, it would have been an idea
to post this proposed change in a transparent manner on the list, I believe.
Unfortunately I think it is impossible to convert from GPL to LGPL without
full permission of all parties that ever contributed. GPL is sort of a one-way 
license on this.

FYI, all the documentation was under GPL, there was no other license.
So that too has been converted to LGPL in this case.

In the past when I brought up the possibility of changing the license
for the docs, Leon pointed out that it would be pretty hard to determine
who had actually contributed and get permission. So it was to be left
as it was. I don't imagine it has gotten easier to locate contributors since
the time of my asking.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Raymond Martin | 19 Oct 2009 17:27
Picon

Re: ANN: Lush 2.0 beta release


> 
> We actually got persmission from all the people we could think of.
> 
> We think a lot more people would use Lush in industrial contexts
> if we switched to the LGPL.
> 
>

Forgot to point out again. As it stands with the package as distributed,
it is indeed violating licenses because it does not have the proper
license header in all the files (C files, etc.). Just an "altered" GPL
one that cannot apply. All those headers must be changed before this
can be distributed. The headers are the only way for an end user to know
what license actually applies (read more on this at the FSF).

In accord with the rules of LGPL/GPL, distribution must cease at this point.

This issue has to be fixed first. And in the process consider adding the header
to many of the other files also (lush scripts, documentation, etc.).

Raymond

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Yann LeCun | 19 Oct 2009 17:45
Picon

Re: ANN: Lush 2.0 beta release

Raymond,

Great! I'm glad that's cleared up.

  -- Yann

On Monday 19 October 2009, Raymond Martin wrote:
> Yann
>
> > We actually got persmission from all the people we could think of.
> >
> > We think a lot more people would use Lush in industrial contexts
> > if we switched to the LGPL.
> >
> > We knew you contributed to the documentation, which is really not
> > affected by the license, but I guess we overlooked your contributions
> > to the code.
> >
> > Would you give your permission for the switch, as far as your
> > contributions are concerned?  If not, we will just take out your
> > contributions, but that would be a shame.
>
> I have no problem with giving permission. Although, it would have been an
> idea to post this proposed change in a transparent manner on the list, I
> believe. Unfortunately I think it is impossible to convert from GPL to LGPL
> without full permission of all parties that ever contributed. GPL is sort
> of a one-way license on this.
>
> FYI, all the documentation was under GPL, there was no other license.
> So that too has been converted to LGPL in this case.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Raymond Martin | 19 Oct 2009 17:48
Picon

Re: ANN: Lush 2.0 beta release

On October 19, 2009 03:24:24 am Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> Ralf Juengling <juenglin <at> cs.pdx.edu> writes:
> > Folks, a first Lush 2.0 beta release is out.
> 
> fpu.c:42:18: error: fenv.h: No such file or directory
> fpu.c:58: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
>  'standard_fenv' fpu.c: In function 'ywith_fpu_env':
> fpu.c:143: error: 'fenv_t' undeclared (first use in this function)
> fpu.c:143: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> fpu.c:143: error: for each function it appears in.)
> fpu.c:143: error: expected ';' before 'current_fenv'
> fpu.c:145: warning: implicit declaration of function 'fegetenv'
> fpu.c:145: error: 'saved_fenv' undeclared (first use in this function)
> fpu.c:147: error: 'standard_fenv' undeclared (first use in this function)
> fpu.c:152: warning: implicit declaration of function 'fesetenv'
> fpu.c: In function 'parse_excepts':
> fpu.c:175: error: 'FE_INVALID' undeclared (first use in this function)
> fpu.c:179: error: 'FE_DIVBYZERO' undeclared (first use in this function)
> fpu.c:183: error: 'FE_OVERFLOW' undeclared (first use in this function)
> fpu.c:187: error: 'FE_UNDERFLOW' undeclared (first use in this function)
> fpu.c:191: error: 'FE_INEXACT' undeclared (first use in this function)
> fpu.c:195: error: 'FE_ALL_EXCEPT' undeclared (first use in this function)
> fpu.c: In function 'unparse_excepts':
> fpu.c:209: error: 'FE_INEXACT' undeclared (first use in this function)
> fpu.c:212: error: 'FE_UNDERFLOW' undeclared (first use in this function)
> fpu.c:215: error: 'FE_OVERFLOW' undeclared (first use in this function)
> fpu.c:218: error: 'FE_DIVBYZERO' undeclared (first use in this function)
> fpu.c:221: error: 'FE_INVALID' undeclared (first use in this function)
> fpu.c: In function 'xfpu_test':
> fpu.c:291: warning: implicit declaration of function 'fetestexcept'
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Yann LeCun | 19 Oct 2009 19:23
Picon

Re: ANN: Lush 2.0 beta release

As I understand it, the point is that NetBSD doesn't have 
a fenv.h, but seems to have ieeefp.h instead.

  -- Yann

On Monday 19 October 2009, Raymond Martin wrote:
> On October 19, 2009 03:24:24 am Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> > Ralf Juengling <juenglin <at> cs.pdx.edu> writes:
> > > Folks, a first Lush 2.0 beta release is out.
> >
> > fpu.c:42:18: error: fenv.h: No such file or directory
> > fpu.c:58: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
> >  'standard_fenv' fpu.c: In function 'ywith_fpu_env':
> > fpu.c:143: error: 'fenv_t' undeclared (first use in this function)
> > fpu.c:143: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> > fpu.c:143: error: for each function it appears in.)
> > fpu.c:143: error: expected ';' before 'current_fenv'
> > fpu.c:145: warning: implicit declaration of function 'fegetenv'
> > fpu.c:145: error: 'saved_fenv' undeclared (first use in this function)
> > fpu.c:147: error: 'standard_fenv' undeclared (first use in this function)
> > fpu.c:152: warning: implicit declaration of function 'fesetenv'
> > fpu.c: In function 'parse_excepts':
> > fpu.c:175: error: 'FE_INVALID' undeclared (first use in this function)
> > fpu.c:179: error: 'FE_DIVBYZERO' undeclared (first use in this function)
> > fpu.c:183: error: 'FE_OVERFLOW' undeclared (first use in this function)
> > fpu.c:187: error: 'FE_UNDERFLOW' undeclared (first use in this function)
> > fpu.c:191: error: 'FE_INEXACT' undeclared (first use in this function)
> > fpu.c:195: error: 'FE_ALL_EXCEPT' undeclared (first use in this function)
> > fpu.c: In function 'unparse_excepts':
> > fpu.c:209: error: 'FE_INEXACT' undeclared (first use in this function)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane