Re: Destruction bug in make test.

2003-10-10 Thread Dan Sugalski
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No. If any object has a destructor it should be called as the last > > interpreter is shut down. We're not guaranteeing dead-on immediate > > destruction, or if the timely flag isn't set timely destruction,

Re: Destruction bug in make test.

2003-10-10 Thread Juergen Boemmels
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No. If any object has a destructor it should be called as the last > > interpreter is shut down. We're not guaranteeing dead-on immediate > > destruction, or if the timely flag isn't set timely destruction

Re: Destruction bug in make test.

2003-10-10 Thread Juergen Boemmels
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Juergen Boemmels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It turned out, that it was even simpler. The explicit sweeping is > > already in the code, but is only triggered if there are objects which > > need _early_ destruction, not if objects just need > > de

Re: Destruction bug in make test.

2003-10-09 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No. If any object has a destructor it should be called as the last > interpreter is shut down. We're not guaranteeing dead-on immediate > destruction, or if the timely flag isn't set timely destruction, but we > *are* guaranteeing eventual destruction. Oh

Re: Destruction bug in make test.

2003-10-09 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Juergen Boemmels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It turned out, that it was even simpler. The explicit sweeping is > already in the code, but is only triggered if there are objects which > need _early_ destruction, not if objects just need > destruction. Removing this test made it work. Why can't yo

Re: Destruction bug in make test.

2003-10-09 Thread Juergen Boemmels
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I disagree :) We already have a 2 stage IO destroy. The first shall > > flush its files. This get called even if destroy-at-end isn't set. The two stage IO destroy is a problem that we don't have destruction ordering yet. Closing the standard handles t

Re: Destruction bug in make test.

2003-10-09 Thread Dan Sugalski
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Juergen Boemmels wrote: > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I just discovered a really subtele bug: > >> Normaly the test are not run with --destroy-at-end. This has not many > >> consequences yet because

Re: Destruction bug in make test.

2003-10-09 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Juergen Boemmels wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I just discovered a really subtele bug: >> Normaly the test are not run with --destroy-at-end. This has not many >> consequences yet because the only PMCs with active destruction are >> IOs, in fact

Re: Destruction bug in make test.

2003-10-09 Thread Juergen Boemmels
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > Option 2 is the right one. (Well, OK, having parrot do an explicit sweep & > destroy's the right option, but until then...) Go ahead and add a patch to > whatever you need to make this happen. It turned out, that it was even simpler. The explicit

Re: Destruction bug in make test.

2003-10-09 Thread Dan Sugalski
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Juergen Boemmels wrote: > Hi, > > I just discovered a really subtele bug: > Normaly the test are not run with --destroy-at-end. This has not many > consequences yet because the only PMCs with active destruction are > IOs, in fact only one test is really sensitive to t/pmc/io_4.

Destruction bug in make test.

2003-10-09 Thread Juergen Boemmels
Hi, I just discovered a really subtele bug: Normaly the test are not run with --destroy-at-end. This has not many consequences yet because the only PMCs with active destruction are IOs, in fact only one test is really sensitive to t/pmc/io_4.pasm, it won't flush its buffers without --destroy-at-en