Kenny Tilton ktilton@nyc.rr.com writes:
Luis Oliveira wrote:
so I completed what was missing in uffi-compat and it passes all tests under SBCL and CLISP. The real UFFI itself failed a couple of tests on Allegro but passes all tests using UFFI-COMPAT, ahah. Isn't that sweet?
I think it is a very Good Sign that your test suite is unearthing bugs in UFFI as well as the Lisps themselves, and of course that CFFI passes those tests. Do you feel you did a good job of having the test suite dig into the edge cases of FFI? Is that why you are finding bugs in Lisps?
No, no.. you misread that. UFFI has a test suite too, and that's the one I'm referring to. UFFI fails its own tests while CFFI's UFFI-COMPAT passes them. :-)
Anyway, regarding the test suite.. I just looked at what James had and followed his example. Test all types, test all use cases, etc... It's no ansi-tests, but then again, I'm no pfdietz ;-) *back to reading CLtL2 from cover to cover*
Looks great. thx for jumping on those stray issues I unearthed. Can you throw me a bone and send me a tarball? I have managed to avoid digging up a WinDARC and would like to keep it that way as long as possible.
Yeah, I set up a directory in CFFI's webpage with snapshots: http://common-lisp.net/project/cffi/tarballs/
Ah, remember I changed foreign-alloc a bit and removed foreign-object-alloc. (the docs are updated reflecting that change).