On Sun Jul 20 18:55:22 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> This patch isn't ideal, but it gets us closer (and avoiding SIGABRT is
> good).
>
Reviewing old tickets today. I applied this patch on my Linux/i386, but
got no improvement. Test #36, which has been TODO-ed, still fails:
not ok 36 - i
On Sunday 20 July 2008 18:19:05 James Keenan via RT wrote:
> 1 test still not passing as of r29636:
>
> not ok 36 - invalid label syntax # TODO RT#47978, RT#51104
>
> # Failed (TODO) test 'invalid label syntax'
> # at t/compilers/imcc/syn/macro.t line 469.
> # 'compilers/imcc
1 test still not passing as of r29636:
not ok 36 - invalid label syntax # TODO RT#47978, RT#51104
# Failed (TODO) test 'invalid label syntax'
# at t/compilers/imcc/syn/macro.t line 469.
# 'compilers/imcc/imcc.l:1010: failed assertion 'valp->s'
# Backtrace - Obtained 10 stack
On Sat Mar 08 09:09:07 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> rblasch has marked this test as TODO as of r26267. So the file as a
> whole is passing (and, at least on Linux, make test is passing), but the
> underlying problem is not solved.
For the record, situation is unchanged as of time of r28365 to
rblasch has marked this test as TODO as of r26267. So the file as a
whole is passing (and, at least on Linux, make test is passing), but the
underlying problem is not solved.
Nope, no clue, we're still segfaulting, and valgrind finds it, but I
don't know enough about internals to fix.
uniqua:~/parrot $ valgrind ./parrot t/compilers/imcc/syn/macro_32.pir
==1234== Memcheck, a memory error detector.
==1234== Copyright (C) 2002-2007, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et a
Over the last week this test is the only one that has been consistently
failing on both Linux and Darwin.
Here's some output from 'make test' on Linux at r26216:
t/compilers/imcc/syn/macro.
# Failed test 'invalid label syntax (RT\#47978, RT\#51104)'
# at t/compilers/imcc/s
On Fri Feb 22 20:18:03 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > The test passed at 25900.
> >
>
> and it passed at 25950. I'll have to pick up on this tomorrow.
And it passed at 25973.
On Feb 22, 2008, at 10:18 PM, James Keenan via RT wrote:
The test passed at 25900.
and it passed at 25950. I'll have to pick up on this tomorrow.
OK, I know what I did to break it. I'm going to see if I can get it
to fail on OS X and then fix it the real way, rather than the way
ch
>
> The test passed at 25900.
>
and it passed at 25950. I'll have to pick up on this tomorrow.
On Fri Feb 22 19:38:42 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Friday 22 February 2008 19:33:12 James Keenan via RT wrote:
>
> > Alas! It is once again failing as of r25999.
>
> Did it work at r25997? I think Andy keeps reverting the fix.
>
I should have spoken more precisely. The revision at wh
On Friday 22 February 2008 19:41:28 Andy Lester wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2008, at 9:38 PM, chromatic wrote:
> >> Alas! It is once again failing as of r25999.
> > Did it work at r25997? I think Andy keeps reverting the fix.
> What is the fix we're talking about?
My patch in r50920, which you revert
On Feb 22, 2008, at 9:38 PM, chromatic wrote:
Alas! It is once again failing as of r25999.
Did it work at r25997? I think Andy keeps reverting the fix.
What is the fix we're talking about?
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
On Friday 22 February 2008 19:33:12 James Keenan via RT wrote:
> Alas! It is once again failing as of r25999.
Did it work at r25997? I think Andy keeps reverting the fix.
-- c
Alas! It is once again failing as of r25999.
t/compilers/imcc/syn/macro...21/33
# Failed test (t/compilers/imcc/syn/macro.t at line 298)
# ''
# doesn't match '/End of file reached/
# '
# './parrot -D40 --gc-debug
"/Users/jimk/work/parrot/t/compilers/imcc/sy
On Sat Feb 16 20:46:51 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Does this patch fix it?
>
> -- c
>
Yes. c++, errr, chromatic++.
Patch applied to trunk in r25793. t/compilers/imcc/syn/macro.t now
passes on Darwin. 'make coretest' passes completely on Darwin. 'make
test' passes on Linux.
Thank y
On Saturday 16 February 2008 15:26:41 Will Coleda wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2008 2:28 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can either of you post a backtrace for the segfault?
> See attached.
Does this patch fix it?
-- c
=== compilers/imcc/imcc.l
On Feb 16, 2008 2:28 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 16 February 2008 10:46:14 James Keenan via RT wrote:
>
> > Binary searching. Fails in r25613, Feb 10, so problem started before then.
>
> Can either of you post a backtrace for the segfault?
>
> -- c
>
See attached.
--
Continuing binary search. I got a pass at r25454, Feb 03. So we're
looking somewhere between 25455 and 25613.
On Saturday 16 February 2008 10:46:14 James Keenan via RT wrote:
> Binary searching. Fails in r25613, Feb 10, so problem started before then.
Can either of you post a backtrace for the segfault?
-- c
Binary searching. Fails in r25613, Feb 10, so problem started before then.
I've been seeing this on trunk on osx intel for some days now.
--
Will "Coke" Coleda
On Feb 16, 2008, at 10:37 AM, James Keenan (via RT) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
# New Ticket Created by James Keenan
# Please include the string: [perl #50920]
# in the subject line of all future correspon
# New Ticket Created by James Keenan
# Please include the string: [perl #50920]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=50920 >
Running 'make test' on ppc-darwin with gcc-3.3 this morning, I got
failures in three t
23 matches
Mail list logo
