- armedbear-devel - mailman3.common-lisp.net

[armedbear-devel] A clos patch for review
by Ville Voutilainen 28 Jul '09

28 Jul '09

Here's a stab at checking initargs for make-instance and others. With this patch, I get rid of the following errors: -CHANGE-CLASS.1.11 -MAKE-INSTANCE.ERROR.3 -MAKE-INSTANCE.ERROR.4 Feel free to comment.

2 7

[armedbear-devel] false-positive ansi tests
by Peter Tsenter 28 Jul '09

28 Jul '09

It seems abcl generates correct result on some ANSI tests, but in actuality abcl fails. The way tests are written, it's hidden from the user. Example: disassemble.4 If one executes (disassemble-it (eval '(function (lambda (x y) (cons x y))))) as it's written then everything looks ok, but (disassemble (eval '(function (lambda (x y) (cons x y))))) returns the following ; 'jad' is not recognized as an internal or external command, ; operable program or batch file. NIL _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Search, add, and share the web’s latest sports videos. Check it out. http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_…

2 2

Re: [armedbear-devel] [j-devel] bug - interaction between unwind-protect, function call, multiple values
by Erik Huelsmann 27 Jul '09

27 Jul '09

Hi Alan, On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Alan Ruttenberg<alanruttenberg(a)gmail.com> wrote: > (defun bar () (values 1 2)) > (bar) => > 1 > 2 > (defun foo () (unwind-protect (return-from foo (bar)) 2)) > (foo) => > 1 > (defun foo () (unwind-protect (return-from foo (values 1 2) 2))) > (foo) => > 1 > 2 > > I noticed this in an early version of abcl, but just downloaded and > built from subversion and it's still there. > Doesn't seem to matter whether it is interpreted or evaluated. It didn't matter whether interpreter or compiled, because both had the same issue. Anyway, thanks for the report! It's fixed now. Bye, Erik.

2 1

Re: [armedbear-devel] [j-devel] bug - interaction between unwind-protect, function call, multiple values
by Erik Huelsmann 27 Jul '09

27 Jul '09

Hi Alan! On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Alan Ruttenberg<alanruttenberg(a)gmail.com> wrote: > (defun bar () (values 1 2)) > (bar) => > 1 > 2 > (defun foo () (unwind-protect (return-from foo (bar)) 2)) > (foo) => > 1 > (defun foo () (unwind-protect (return-from foo (values 1 2) 2))) > (foo) => > 1 > 2 > > I noticed this in an early version of abcl, but just downloaded and > built from subversion and it's still there. > Doesn't seem to matter whether it is interpreted or evaluated. I can see the error in the compiler; it's in p2-unwind-proctect: the exception handler doesn't save the values register of the thread. Maybe it's the same in the interpreter. I'll have a look later today, if I have time. Thanks for the report! Bye, Erik.

1 0

[armedbear-devel] progress on Maxima + ABCL -- light at the end of the tunnel!
by Robert Dodier 26 Jul '09

26 Jul '09

Hi, I've compiled Maxima (from CVS) with ABCL (from svn) and run_testsuite() shows just a few errors due to different floating point results. Hurray! The key change to Maxima seems to have been changing EQ to EQUAL in a pattern-matching function ... In ABCL it appears that numbers are not necessarily EQ so a lot of patterns failed. Since the pattern-matching stuff is widely used in Maxima (especially integrals) there were a lot of failed tests. Just that one change seems to have fixed dozens of test failures! I found it necessary to run the autoconf machinery (sh bootstrap && ./configure at least; I ran make as well, although I don't know if that's actually necessary, and then I ran configure.lisp as described in INSTALL.lisp) before compiling with ABCL via: (require 'asdf) (asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op :maxima) Without the autoconf stuff, src/autoconf-variables.lisp has incorrect values, it seems. Maxima + ABCL is extremely slow -- something like 7 times slower than Maxima + Clisp, which is the slowest of the established Lisp implementations I've tried (GCL, ECL, SBCL, CMUCL, and Clisp). I'm working on Linux, maybe it helps to run on Windows -- I'm thinking the Java implementation might be faster. Just a guess. I'm pretty excited about the possibilities here. A long-term project is to organize Maxima into modules in hopes of making it possible to load different modules a la carte -- I think that might make it attractive for bolting it onto different projects. Thanks to the ABCL developers for all their work. best Robert Dodier Maxima developer

1 0

[armedbear-devel] Deploying compiled ABCL apps/elements
by Matt Lamari 26 Jul '09

26 Jul '09

What is the mechanism for converting source code or an in-memory image (or fragment thereof) into a deployable unit? Just point me at a function name/document and I can take it from there. . . . Thanks, Matt

4 5

[armedbear-devel] Problem loading Lisp file on Mac, but works on Windows
by Paul Reiners 25 Jul '09

25 Jul '09

I've written a Java program that calls a Lisp program. On Windows, this works just fine. However when I run it on Mac OS X, I get this error: Error loading /Users/paul/Documents/workspaces/MyOpenSourceProjects/ JVMLanguages/src/life.lisp at line 53 (offset 1628) Debugger invoked on condition of type END-OF-FILE: #<END-OF-FILE {51190A}> [1] CL-USER(1): Any idea what is going wrong here? I wrote both the Lisp and Java files on Windows originally. Is it some sort of character encoding problem? Here are the relevant files: http://automatous-monk.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/automatous-monk/JVMLangua… http://automatous-monk.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/automatous-monk/JVMLangua… Paul

1 0

[armedbear-devel] Holidays or the release of 0.16?
by Erik Huelsmann 25 Jul '09

25 Jul '09

With the normal release schedule, it would be time to release 0.16 in 1 or 2 weeks. However, I'll be travelling with unknown amounts of net time around that time. Until then, I'll be busy with work and travel preparations. So, we have 2 options here: 1. One of the other committers steps up and makes the release Most of our release process is documented in the wiki. What's not there can be added until then 2. We delay 0.16 until some time I have time to create the release. With kind regards, Erik.

2 1

[armedbear-devel] second version of the StackFrame cleanup
by Ville Voutilainen 23 Jul '09

23 Jul '09

Same as before, but use a vararg function instead of doing manual arrays. Java does correctly choose a multi-param version when it's available, it only uses a vararg version when it has to.

1 0

[armedbear-devel] (lisp) Stack management efficiency
by Erik Huelsmann 21 Jul '09

21 Jul '09

Peter Graves pointed me at the language/implementation efficiency shootout at http://www.ffconsultancy.com/languages/ray_tracer/benchmark.html which implements a ray tracer in a multitude of languagues, one of them being Common Lisp. There are a number of rows, which I conviniently name version 1 (row 1) to version 5 (last row). Peter points out that version 1 isn't optized at all: all functions lead to function calls (no inlining). When running this code, it takes around 1440 seconds on my PC. Then I modified the stack management routine to re-use available stack frames (and conses), instead of creating new ones on every call. This took execution time down to around 1240 seconds. A good improvement, I'd say. However, with the change described above, stack frames won't ever become garbage anymore. My question is: does the loss of GC-ability outweigh the performance gain? Please note that it's possible to run without a lisp stack (but that also means without traces) by compiling code with a (SPEED 3) declaration. Comments? Bye, Erik.

7 16