On Thursday 15 November 2007 16:36:31 chromatic wrote:
> Parrot::Config::Generated is a much more reliable source of information,
> and if the tests truly need information about the local system for
> compiling and linking purposes, they should fetch the information from
> there, not from the Perl
For the first time ever, I was able to successfully complete these two
tests:
t/compilers/pge/p5regex/p5rx.ok
355/960 skipped: various reasons
t/compilers/pge/p6regex/01-regex.ok
Somebody (most likely chromatic) has plugged a very big leak.
(Unfort
chromatic wrote:
# New Ticket Created by chromatic
# Please include the string: [perl #47503]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=47503 >
I've seen a lot of test failures under t/configure/*.t lately where link
Hi,
In my reading through the PDDs, I came across the new PAST one, which I'm
happy to see. I noticed that there is not any class and role definition
related PAST nodes. I don't know if that's by design or just because
nobody has written a spec and implementation yet. I think that since many
langu
Hi,
There are a handful of failing tests in languages/perl6/ that fail with
the following error:
Object must be created by a class.
I've done some digging into what's going on. Basically, the Perl 6
compiler generates code that makes an Undef PMC, for a new lexical, and
then assigns to it. That
# New Ticket Created by Paul Cochrane
# Please include the string: [perl #47523]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=47523 >
Hi everyone!
One nit I have about C-code is that I think there should be a space
after
Hi,
After a while away I'm starting to get back into Parrot. I've been reading
PDD17 and like what I'm seeing - nice work. :-) I'm trying to get it and
the current state of its implementation into my head, so I can help out
with it. It appears there is much left to implement!
I've got a couple of
hi,
in order to get the compilation process of PIR clear, I wrote a bit of
an overview for myself,
and to allow others to correct me if I'm wrong, if anybody feels to
:-) In any case, I can find this document back in my email.
It's far from complete, but I try to get an overview of stuff that
nee
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, James Keenan via RT wrote:
> New version of t/configure/124-auto_alignptrs-05.t committed in r22840.
which now fails with
t/configure/124-auto_alignptrs-051..21
ok 1 - use config::init::defaults;
ok 2 - use config::inter::progs;
ok 3 - use config::auto::attributes;
ok 4
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Nicholas Clark via RT wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 02:49:33PM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>
> > 130 cast increases required alignment of target type
>
> That warning is unlikely to show up on anything x86 isn't it?
Right. Most of them them are also harmless, though i
On Friday 16 November 2007 04:29:48 James E Keenan wrote:
> chromatic wrote:
> > # New Ticket Created by chromatic
> > # Please include the string: [perl #47503]
> > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> > # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=47503 >
>
On Fri Nov 16 11:56:27 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I accept that. Until the point where these four tests are as reliable
> as the
> rest of the tests of the configuration system, can we mark them as
> TODO? We
> know they won't pass everywhere, and they're not giving us valuable
> informa
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: jkeenan
> Date: Fri Nov 16 10:15:05 2007
> New Revision: 22847
>
> Modified:
>trunk/t/configure/146-auto_snprintf-01.t
>
> Log: Run additional instances of test_step_thru_runstep() to provide
> enough info to Parrot::Configure object f
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, chromatic wrote:
> config::init::defaults pulls the libs setting out of the Perl 5 configuration
> and various tests of the Parrot configuration process use
> config::init::defaults to set up the environment for testing.
[it also pulls many other settings -- the compiler na
Paul Cochrane wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Paul Cochrane
# Please include the string: [perl #47523]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=47523 >
Hi everyone!
One nit I have about C-code is that I think there
Failing test placed in TODO block in r22848 per suggestion from chromatic.
Failing test placed in TODO block in r22849.
Three tests cited as failing by adougherty have been placed in TODO blocks.
Apart from the *general* problem of relying too heavily on Perl 5'c
Config.pm (via init::defaults) for values during testing of the
configuration step tests, does the following accurately summarize the
reasons why *specific* tests are failing on your systems?
chromatic:
Is using a vendor-supplied
This test passed when I tested on Linux tonight (though new ones
failed!). Don't know reason for either failure or success, but am
resolving ticket.
On Friday 16 November 2007 17:51:52 James Keenan via RT wrote:
> Apart from the *general* problem of relying too heavily on Perl 5'c
> Config.pm (via init::defaults) for values during testing of the
> configuration step tests, does the following accurately summarize the
> reasons why *specific* te
# New Ticket Created by James Keenan
# Please include the string: [perl #47531]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=47531 >
Failed tonight on Linux. The failures appear to follow a pattern.
Here is output of
On Wed Nov 14 14:37:13 2007, doughera wrote:
>
> I was trying to build parrot with gcc.
>
> $ cat myconfig
> Summary of my parrot 0.4.17 (r0) configuration:
> configdate='Wed Nov 14 14:44:25 2007 GMT'
> Platform:
> osname=solaris, archname=sun4-solaris
> jitcapable=0, jitarchname=noj
23 matches
Mail list logo
