3:46 p.m.
Should I be concerned about this...
,----[ make check ]
| cd ./src && make check
| make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/src'
| ./xemacs -batch -l \
| /usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/src/../tests/automated/test-harness.el \
| -f batch-test-emacs /usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/src/../tests/automated
| Testing /usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/tests/automated/base64-tests.el...
| base64-tests.el: 1234 of 1234 (100%) tests successful.
| Testing /usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/tests/automated/byte-compiler-tests.el...
| byte-compiler-tests.el: 78 of 78 (100%) tests successful.
| Testing /usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/tests/automated/c-tests.el...
| c-tests.el: 2 of 2 (100%) tests successful.
| Testing /usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/tests/automated/database-tests.el...
| database-tests.el: 10 of 10 (100%) tests successful.
| Testing /usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/tests/automated/hash-table-tests.el...
| hash-table-tests.el: 9866 of 9866 (100%) tests successful.
| Testing /usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/tests/automated/lisp-tests.el...
| lisp-tests.el: 3386 of 3386 (100%) tests successful.
| Testing /usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/tests/automated/md5-tests.el...
| md5-tests.el: 56 of 56 (100%) tests successful.
| Testing /usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/tests/automated/mule-tests.el...
| mule-tests.el: 226 of 226 (100%) tests successful.
| Testing /usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/tests/automated/symbol-tests.el...
| symbol-tests.el: 262 of 264 (99%) tests successful.
| Testing /usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/tests/automated/syntax-tests.el...
| syntax-tests.el: 56 of 56 (100%) tests successful.
| Done
| make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/src'
`----
It failed two of the symbol tests. Martin?
--
|---<Regards, Steve Youngs>-----------[GnuPG KeyID: EFD82ED2]---|
| XEmacs - It's not just an editor... |
| It's a way of life. |
|----------------------------------<mailto:youngsï¼ xemacs.org>---|
5:52 p.m.
>>>> "Steve" == Steve Youngs
<youngs(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Steve> | symbol-tests.el: 262 of 264 (99%) tests successful.
Steve> | Testing /usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/tests/automated/syntax-tests.el...
The regression suite is supposed to pass 100%, and it does for me.
Standard question: can I get access to your system to debug?
Martin
3:54 a.m.
Martin Buchholz <martin(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Youngs
<youngs(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Steve> | symbol-tests.el: 262 of 264 (99%) tests successful.
Steve> | Testing /usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/tests/automated/syntax-tests.el...
The regression suite is supposed to pass 100%, and it does for me.
Hmm... Then I think I have to debug this myself.
Testing /src/xemacs/tests/automated/hash-table-tests.el...
hash-table-tests.el: 9864 of 9866 (99%) tests successful.
--
Yoshiki Hayashi
5:09 a.m.
>>>> "Y" == Yoshiki Hayashi
<yoshiki(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Y> Martin Buchholz <martin(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> >>>>> "Steve" == Steve Youngs
<youngs(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>
Steve> | symbol-tests.el: 262 of 264 (99%) tests successful.
Steve> | Testing /usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/tests/automated/syntax-tests.el...
>
> The regression suite is supposed to pass 100%, and it does for me.
Y> Hmm... Then I think I have to debug this myself.
Y> Testing /src/xemacs/tests/automated/hash-table-tests.el...
Y> hash-table-tests.el: 9864 of 9866 (99%) tests successful.
Hmmmmmm.
Follow instructions in test-harness.el to find the failing test.
One possibility is that re-byte-compiling everything in the core lisp
will fix things. We don't have accurate core lisp dependencies. And
the byte-compiler has been modified. (Although this shouldn't matter).
Try from the build directory:
find lisp/. -name '*.elc' -print | xargs rm; make && make check
Martin
7:29 a.m.
>>>> "mb" == Martin Buchholz
<martin(a)xemacs.org> writes:
mb> One possibility is that re-byte-compiling everything in the
I have been doing this on every CVS update for ages. Maybe we should
add it to the make beta target?
mb> core lisp will fix things. We don't have accurate core lisp
mb> dependencies. And the byte-compiler has been modified.
mb> (Although this shouldn't matter).
FWIW, everything passed 100% for me, too.
--
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________ _________________ _________________ _________________
What are those straight lines for? "XEmacs rules."
10:53 a.m.
>>>> "Y" == Yoshiki Hayashi
<yoshiki(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Y> Martin Buchholz <martin(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> >>>>> "Steve" == Steve Youngs
<youngs(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>
Steve> | symbol-tests.el: 262 of 264 (99%) tests successful.
Steve> | Testing /usr/local/src/xemacs-21.2/tests/automated/syntax-tests.el...
>
> The regression suite is supposed to pass 100%, and it does for me.
Y> Hmm... Then I think I have to debug this myself.
Y> Testing /src/xemacs/tests/automated/hash-table-tests.el...
Y> hash-table-tests.el: 9864 of 9866 (99%) tests successful.
I tried to track this down on Steve's computer. Steve is using
amazingly aggressive optimization, ie.
pgcc-2.95.3 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -Wall -mathlon -mcpu=athlon
-march=athlon -malign-functions=4 -funroll-loops
-fexpensive-optimizations -malign-double -fschedule-insns2
-mwide-multiply
With that degree of optimization, I expect optimizer bugs from the
gcc/pgcc guys. We've had them before. Of course, it *could* be a
stray pointer bug in XEmacs, but it smells like a compiler bug.
If you just use -O3 like configure wants you to, the world will be
happy, and your xemacs will be fast enough.
Yoshiki, are you also using pgcc or athlon-specific optimizations?
Martin
11:39 a.m.
Martin Buchholz <martin(a)xemacs.org> writes:
I tried to track this down on Steve's computer. Steve is using
amazingly aggressive optimization, ie.
pgcc-2.95.3 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -Wall -mathlon -mcpu=athlon
-march=athlon -malign-functions=4 -funroll-loops
-fexpensive-optimizations -malign-double -fschedule-insns2
-mwide-multiply
With that degree of optimization, I expect optimizer bugs from the
gcc/pgcc guys. We've had them before. Of course, it *could* be a
stray pointer bug in XEmacs, but it smells like a compiler bug.
If you just use -O3 like configure wants you to, the world will be
happy, and your xemacs will be fast enough.
Yoshiki, are you also using pgcc or athlon-specific optimizations?
I'm using gcc 2.95.2 and compiler options is default one
from configure. Now I've done a little more test and I
found my modification to the byte optimizer is the culprit.
Failed tests are:
L172: (Assert (= (* iterations 4) (hash-table-count ht)))
L185: (Assert (= (+ 2 (* 2 iterations)) (hash-table-count ht)))
I copied following code from Emacs 20.7 but I became busy and
never got around to submit it.
(put 'concat 'byte-optimizer 'byte-optimize-concat)
(defun byte-optimize-concat (form)
(let ((args (cdr form))
(constant t))
(while (and args constant)
(or (byte-compile-constp (car args))
(setq constant nil))
(setq args (cdr args)))
(if constant
(eval form)
form)))
With this optimze on, byte-compiled (concat "1" "2")
produces new object on only first evaluation. Now I have
some time to hack XEmacs again and going to submit above
optimization, I'd like to change (concat "1" "2") to
(concat "1" (number-to-string 2)). Martin, what do you
think?
--
Yoshiki Hayashi
1:57 p.m.
>>>> "Y" == Yoshiki Hayashi
<yoshiki(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Y> (put 'concat 'byte-optimizer 'byte-optimize-concat)
Y> (defun byte-optimize-concat (form)
Y> (let ((args (cdr form))
Y> (constant t))
Y> (while (and args constant)
Y> (or (byte-compile-constp (car args))
Y> (setq constant nil))
Y> (setq args (cdr args)))
Y> (if constant
Y> (eval form)
Y> form)))
Y> With this optimze on, byte-compiled (concat "1" "2")
Y> produces new object on only first evaluation. Now I have
Y> some time to hack XEmacs again and going to submit above
Y> optimization, I'd like to change (concat "1" "2") to
Y> (concat "1" (number-to-string 2)). Martin, what do you
Y> think?
Looks good to me.
Martin
9:30 p.m.
Mine looks broken too, and sorry you can't access my machine ;-)
Testing
/home/tonyl/loc/xemacs/repository/xemacs-cvs/xemacs-21.2/tests/automated/byte-compiler-tests.el...
Unexpected error (void-function defadvice) while executing interpreted code.
Test suite execution aborted.
Unexpected error (void-variable message) while executing byte-compiled code.
Test suite execution aborted.
byte-compiler-tests.el: No tests run
Test suite execution failed unexpectedly.
1:20 a.m.
>>>> "TL" == Tony Lam
<Tony.Lam(a)eng.sun.com> writes:
TL> Mine looks broken too, and sorry you can't access my machine ;-)
TL> Testing
/home/tonyl/loc/xemacs/repository/xemacs-cvs/xemacs-21.2/tests/automated/byte-compiler-tests.el...
TL> Unexpected error (void-function defadvice) while executing interpreted code.
TL> Test suite execution aborted.
TL> Unexpected error (void-variable message) while executing byte-compiled code.
TL> Test suite execution aborted.
TL> byte-compiler-tests.el: No tests run
TL> Test suite execution failed unexpectedly.
No, that means xemacs can't find the unbundled packages. Investigate
--package-path and EMACSPACKAGEPATH.
3:58 a.m.
=> On Oct 6, 2000, Martin Buchholz(M) wrote:
>>>>> "TL" == Tony Lam
<Tony.Lam(a)eng.sun.com> writes:
TL> Mine looks broken too, and sorry you
can't access my machine ;-)
TL> Testing
/home/tonyl/loc/xemacs/repository/xemacs-cvs/xemacs-21.2/tests/automated/byte-compiler-tests.el...
TL> Unexpected error (void-function defadvice) while executing interpreted code.
TL> Test suite execution aborted.
TL> Unexpected error (void-variable message) while executing byte-compiled code.
TL> Test suite execution aborted.
TL> byte-compiler-tests.el: No tests run
TL> Test suite execution failed unexpectedly.
M> No, that means xemacs can't find the unbundled packages. Investigate
M> --package-path and EMACSPACKAGEPATH.
That was it. Thanks Martin.
8601
days inactive
8602
days old
10 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Martin Buchholz -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Steve Youngs -
Tony Lam -
Yoshiki Hayashi