armedbear-devel

armedbear-devel@common-lisp.net

2 participants
1202 discussions

[armedbear-devel] enter debug repl when eval command line gets error?
by Alan Ruttenberg 09 May '10

09 May '10

Currently abcl quits if an error is signaled while processing a form in a --eval option. I can see that one might sometimes want this to happen - perhaps another switch then? -Alan

1 0

[armedbear-devel] passing adjustable strings to java
by Alan Ruttenberg 08 May '10

08 May '10

Looks like fill pointer isn't taken into account: (jcall "toString" (make-array 10 :element-type 'character :adjustable t :fill-pointer 3 :initial-contents "fooxxxxxxx")) -> "fooxxxxxxx" -Alan

1 1

Re: [armedbear-devel] [armedbear-cvs] r12620 - trunk/abcl/src/org/armedbear/lisp
by Erik Huelsmann 07 May '10

07 May '10

Hi Mark, On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Mark Evenson <mevenson(a)common-lisp.net> wrote: > Author: mevenson > Date: Fri Apr 16 09:41:21 2010 > New Revision: 12620 > > Log: > Use interpreted form in a FASL if compliation fails. Although I think this is a great fallback, it seems to be automatically selected right now. I'm affraid of the negative side effects of that scenario: people will not notice that their code wasn't compiled, but is now interpreted instead. The ultimate side effect could be that we don't get any reports anymore regarding brokenness of our compiler. In my eyes, there are 2 ways forward with this: 1) We undo this option; this leaves users at a loss when compilation fails; they'll need to use the entire file uncompiled. 2) We make the fallback a selectable restart; this way, compilation gets interrupted, the user is aware and we're much more likely to receive our feedback. But the user isn't restricted to using a fully interpreted file anymore. Quite possibly, you can read my preference through the lines already: I think option (2) is *really* nice. What's your opinion on the matter? Bye, Erik.

3 4

[armedbear-devel] Including ASDF 2 in the next ABCL release
by Faré 06 May '10

06 May '10

Dear ABCL developers, could you test for inclusion with your implementation the current release candidate of ASDF 2 (version 1.715 as of this writing)? http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/ ASDF 2 is an evolution of ASDF that tries to be backwards compatible with previous releases and their many extensions, while at the same time improving the user experience in many important ways. I have worked hard towards reaching the current state, which I believe is now suitable for release. Could you please send us fixes for any glaring bugs, and otherwise include ASDF 2 in any alpha-testing release channel for users of your implementation? I think it's mostly ready, and I'd like to have it widely tested before the actual release, which I hope will happen this month of May 2010, hopefully without any code change (except maybe for some tweaks to enhance support for some Lisp implementations on some operating systems), and with slightly enhanced documentation (notably based on your feedback). I'm using ASDF 2 at ITA. Recent versions are already included in ECL and ABCL. Several hackers have tried building plenty of packages with it. While it's far from my ideal of perfection, and admittedly only a relatively small limited of previous code, I believe it's enough of an advance over the previous generation of ASDF that I'd like to get it out to the world. The code has been extensively cleaned up while preserving previous semantics everywhere that it was well-defined. Our testing has revealed no regressions from ASDF 1. What has changed since ASDF 1 is documented at the following page: http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/asdf/FAQ.html Improvements include: * portably handle naming of files wrt directory, type, host/device, etc. * a builtin user-configurable output translation mechanism, superseding asdf-binary-locations and previous hacks in common-lisp-controller and cl-launch. * a user-configurable source registry system for finding systems (the old *central-registry* is still available). * improved portability to many implementations. * improved support for Windows (though we still lack implementation-dependent configuration support except on LispWorks). [NOTE: I couldn't parse this item. I juggled the sentence structure, but I still don't get it. What kind of configuration support is needed for Windows? What aspects of configuration that we have on other OSes is missing from Windows?] * many bug fixes * better documentation * the test suite, while still largely incomplete, covers more cases and is more robust across implementations. * substantial performance improvements when processing large systems with thousands of components. * API improvements: load-system, system-relative-pathname, etc. * a sensible versioning system for ASDF 2 itself. * ASDF can be now be upgraded in a running lisp image. Using this in-place upgrade, ASDF releases can be decoupled from implementation releases. * better support for various extensions used by ECL and ABCL, and also by POIU, ASDF-DEPENDENCY-GROVEL. Pitfalls include: * Output translations is enabled by default. This may surprise some users, most of them in pleasant way (we hope), a few of them in an unpleasant way. It is trivial to disable output translations. Simply put (ASDF:DISABLE-OUTPUT-TRANSLATIONS) in a lisp startup file. * Some systems in the large have been known not to play well with asdf output translations. They were easy to fix. The most likely issue is to have chaining of operations (e.g., a preprocessing before a load) where the INPUT-FILES of one operation are related to the OUTPUT-FILES of another. In this case many issues can be avoided by simply making the OUTPUT-FILES primary, and having later operations' INPUT-FILES be defined in terms of the OUTPUT-FILES of other operations instead of directly defining the INPUT-FILES. It is also easy to disable output translations or override its configuration. * ASDF 2 output translations do not work with ASDF-Binary-Locations. They replace A-B-L, and include a compatibility mode to emulate your previous A-B-L configuration. See ENABLE-ASDF-BINARY-LOCATIONS-COMPATIBILITY. But you shouldn't load ABL on top of ASDF 2. * A notable performance bug on SBCL (and possibly other implementations, too): the recursive search of configured paths in your source-registry with (DIRECTORY "/configured/path/**/*.asd") can waste a few seconds when initially searching for asd files (depending on your configuration). If it is essential for you to avoid this pause, you should override the default source-registry and only use non-recursive :DIRECTORY options (or shallow trees). * On Windows, when not using cygwin, only LispWorks has proper defaults for configuration pathnames. Other implementations make do. Patches welcome. * Windows support has not been sufficiently well tested. As to how to best include ASDF in your implementation, here is an excerpt from the FAQ section of our manual: 12.3.2 "I'm a Common Lisp implementation vendor. When and how should I upgrade ASDF?" Starting with current candidate releases of ASDF 2, it should always be a good time to upgrade to a recent version of ASDF. You may consult with the maintainer for which specific version they recommend, but the latest RELEASE should be correct. We trust you to thoroughly test it with your implementation before you release it. If there are any issues with the current release, it's a bug that you should report upstream and that we will fix ASAP. In order to report bugs, please use the launchpad bug tracker. Information about launchpad is contained in the manual. As to how to include ASDF, we recommend the following: * If ASDF isn't installed yet, then (require :asdf) should load the version of ASDF that is bundled with your system. You may have it load some other version configured by the user, if you allow such configuration. * If your system provides a mechanism to hook into CL:REQUIRE, then it would be nice to add ASDF to this hook the same way that SBCL, CCL and ABCL do. * You may, like SBCL, have ASDF be implicitly used to require systems that are bundled with your Lisp distribution. If you do have a few magic systems that come with your implementation in a precompiled way such that one should only use the binary version that goes with your distribution, like SBCL does, then you should add them in the beginning of wrapping-source-registry. Please consult with the ASDF maintainers about that. * If you have magic systems as above, then we explicitly ask you to NOT distribute asdf.asd as part of those magic systems. You should still include the file asdf.lisp in your source distribution and precompile it in your binary distribution, but asdf.asd if included at all, should be secluded from the magic systems, in a separate file hierarchy, or you may otherwise rename the system and its file to e.g. asdf-ecl and asdf-ecl.asd, or sb-asdf and sb-asdf.asd. If you make asdf.asd a magic system, then users will no longer be able to upgrade ASDF using ASDF itself. It is helpful to be able to do this in order for users to be able to use an ASDF version of their own choosing that they maintain independently from your Lisp distribution. * If you do not have any such magic systems, or have other non-magic systems that you want to bundle with your implementation, then you may add them to the default-source-registry, and you are welcome to include asdf.asd amongst them. * Please send us upstream any patches you make to ASDF itself, so we can merge them back in for the benefit of your users when they upgrade to the upstream version. [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity. — Albert Einstein

2 1

[armedbear-devel] debug assert considered bad for health
by Alan Ruttenberg 06 May '10

06 May '10

Blood pressure, specifically. What does one do with this: ABCL Debug.assertTrue() assertion failed! java.lang.Error: ABCL Debug.assertTrue() assertion failed! at org.armedbear.lisp.Debug.assertTrue(Debug.java:46) at org.armedbear.lisp.Package.shadowingImport(Package.java:601) at org.armedbear.lisp.PackageFunctions$9.execute(PackageFunctions.java:190) at org.armedbear.lisp.Primitive.execute(Primitive.java:108) at org.armedbear.lisp.Symbol.execute(Symbol.java:776) No message - go hunt in source code. Yuck. -Alan

5 11

Re: [armedbear-devel] debug assert considered bad for health
by Ville Voutilainen 06 May '10

06 May '10

> On 6 May 2010 20:18, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> With the above example, you could show _how_ the boolean is computed. >> That assert would print stuff like >> "Assertion failed at foobar.java:123: ((5 + 6 + 8) == 18)" > Yes, but I think what's needed is more like: > Debug.fail("Expected pathname host of '"+ p + "' to be a > string, symbol, or cons"); Yes, that would be helpful. We could start with that at least, and pipe-dream about macros later. :)

1 0

[armedbear-devel] Moving toward a release
by Erik Huelsmann 06 May '10

06 May '10

Just writing a note that it's time to move toward a release. Over the past days a number of fixes have been committed, especially with respect to pathname code, but in other areas as well. If you have time to excersize some testing, please do and report any failure (or succes!). Before branching the 0.20.x branch, I hope to be able to see 2 additional changes: * finishing METACLASS tests - this is my action item, but is more or less blocked by the next item * ABCL being able to run its own tests - on Windows, this is currently broken by one of the Pathname changes; if you have time to contribute (and hence take some weight off Mark's shoulders) please do! Once again, any feedback appreciated. Bye, Erik.

3 5

[armedbear-devel] Idea to fix ticket 79: identical uninterned symbols coalesced in fasl
by Erik Huelsmann 02 May '10

02 May '10

Ticket 79 is one of the "correctness" category: we do something which we shouldn't (although it hasn't been seen in real life yet). When we compile a file containing 2 *different* -yet similarly named - uninterned symbols, they are coalesced into the same object when reading that fasl. The above behaviour is a consequence of the design choice: the same uninterned symbol may occur in multiple places in the sources, meaning that multiple CompiledClosures may need to refer to the same symbol in their constructor. ABCL solved this problem by interning all unintered symbols into the same anonymous package. When that happens, all occurrances of the same uninterned symbols are coalesced into the same object. However, the same happens to all equally named uninterned symbols which are *not* the same symbol. Here's my idea to resolve this situation, in a simple step-by-step representation: 0. Install a dispatch macro function (in some unused dispatch macro character); something like #n# 1. Adjust DUMP-FORM to generate the dispatch output for uninterned symbols 1. Create all uninterned symbols at the start of the FASL (filling a table with them) 2. Let the reader resolve the uninterned symbols by looking up in the table This approach has the nice side-effect that we can eliminate the need for the anonymous package - although we will need to maintain a table. It will resolve the issues we currently have with the coalesced symbols. It uses standard Lisp infrastructure; no heavy code changes required. Comments? Bye, Erik.

4 9

[armedbear-devel] Ticket #93: (VALUES) interpreted as NIL by the reader
by Erik Huelsmann 01 May '10

01 May '10

Hi James, Working towards an 0.20 release, I had a look at ticket 93 which was filed by you (from the wording I concluded that it must have been a regression). Although it didn't turn out to be a regression: this issue must have been in our sources for a looong time, it turned out to be easy to fix: r12645 fixes this bug and its cousin in read-delimited-list, which caused the same error. Anyway, the issue you reported has been fixed. Thanks for your report! Bye, Erik.

1 0

[armedbear-devel] Patches for ABCL against asdf-1.641
by Mark Evenson 01 May '10

01 May '10

Attached are patches in 'abcl-asdf.patch' to get asdf-1.641 to work against ABCL for the run-tests.sh. Unfortunately, you will need to build [ABCL from trunk][1] using at least svn r12550, because I had to patch ABCL to work with ASDF. And you'll need to apply the 'abcl-translate-pathname.patch'. [1]: svn://common-lisp.net/project/armedbear/svn/trunk/abcl Notes: 1. The fugliness of the conditional around ASDF:GET-UID works around a bug in the ABCL compiler. We are in the process of [analyzing the error][2]. [2]: http://trac.common-lisp.net/armedbear/ticket/89 2. There is some undiagnosed problem in translating the binary location for the new ASDF2 "~/.cache" conventions, as ABCL seems to "collapses" everything into a single directory. Somehow, the default *output-translations* have a "/**/**/*.*" where there should be "/**/*.*". I'm not sure if this is a problem in "abcl-translate-pathname.patch", which is why I didn't apply this to ABCL trunk. 3. ASDF's run-tests.sh seems to ignore the "flags" setting, which seems to be broken on the ASDF side. 4. The changes for ASDF look quite interesting. However I would advocate that you should make ASDF2 work *exactly* like ASDF1 out of the box, meaning you shouldn't do any of the subsumed ASDF-BINARY-LOCATIONS stuff without being asked to by configuration. -- "A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare to it now."

6 28

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

armedbear-devel