The vampire has lain cold for a week. I'm resolving the ticket. Any
new instances of failure in t/examples/shootout.t should open a new
ticket (albeit one which should refer back to this one).
kid51
On Sunday 17 February 2008 18:19:30 James Keenan via RT wrote:
> I can't say exactly what happened, but someone in the last 24 hours
> committed some code which had the effect of getting
> t/examples/shootout.t to pass on Darwin. (See attached output of 'prove
> -v'.)
>
> The shootout itself has
On Thu Aug 09 20:20:09 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I'm looking to close this ticket if we can... is anyone
> still seeing a failure in the shootout/regexdna.pir test
> in the latest svn HEAD ? If so, what OS and architecture?
>
> I'm particularly interested in hearing from people who hav
> I'm not sure about the current status of t/examples/shootout.t on Linux,
> but it is still failing on Darwin. See attached.
>
It just passed on my Mandriva.
--
Email and shopping with the feelgood factor!
55% of income to good causes. http://www.ippimail.com
On Thu Oct 18 19:31:48 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not sure about the current status of t/examples/shootout.t on Linux,
> but it is still failing on Darwin. See attached.
It should be noted that apart from shootout.t, the only failures I'm
getting on Darwin are from the same tests which
I'm not sure about the current status of t/examples/shootout.t on Linux,
but it is still failing on Darwin. See attached.
t/examples/shootout..
# Failed test (t/examples/shootout.t at line 108)
# Exited with error code: [SIGNAL 10]
# Received:
#
# Expected:
# P4
# 200
James Keenan via RT wrote:
On Sun Jul 08 12:27:06 2007, jkeen at verizon.net wrote:
t/examples/shootout.t is failing even worse today than yesterday.
Here's the weekly update: shootout continues to fail on Darwin ... but
it's continuing to pass on Linux (which I've upgraded to Debian 4.0).
Patrick R. Michaud via RT wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 04:37:30PM -0600, Lloyd Miller wrote:
(Like you, I'm also running kubuntu feisty on an x86_64 system,
gcc 4.1.2.)
OK, I tried svn r20585 and this fail is gone from make test.
Excellent. Thanks for confirming.
I'm looking to close this
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 22:19:29 -0500
"Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 04:37:30PM -0600, Lloyd Miller wrote:
> > >(Like you, I'm also running kubuntu feisty on an x86_64 system,
> > >gcc 4.1.2.)
> >
> > OK, I tried svn r20585 and this fail is gone from make t
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 04:37:30PM -0600, Lloyd Miller wrote:
> >(Like you, I'm also running kubuntu feisty on an x86_64 system,
> >gcc 4.1.2.)
>
> OK, I tried svn r20585 and this fail is gone from make test.
Excellent. Thanks for confirming.
I'm looking to close this ticket if we can... is an
Patrick R. Michaud via RT wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 09:12:20PM -0600, Lloyd Miller wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud via RT wrote:
On Tue Aug 07 20:00:03 2007, millerlf at telus.net wrote:
when I ran "make test" I get 1 failure. Looks like this ...
not ok 16 - examples/shootout/regexdna.pir
#
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 09:12:20PM -0600, Lloyd Miller wrote:
> Patrick R. Michaud via RT wrote:
> >On Tue Aug 07 20:00:03 2007, millerlf at telus.net wrote:
> >>when I ran "make test" I get 1 failure. Looks like this ...
> >>
> >>not ok 16 - examples/shootout/regexdna.pir
> >># Failed test (t
Patrick R. Michaud via RT wrote:
On Tue Aug 07 20:00:03 2007, millerlf at telus.net wrote:
when I ran "make test" I get 1 failure. Looks like this ...
not ok 16 - examples/shootout/regexdna.pir
# Failed test (t/examples/shootout.t at line 103)
[...]
# Segmentation fault (core dumped)
[...]
On Tue Aug 07 20:00:03 2007, millerlf at telus.net wrote:
> when I ran "make test" I get 1 failure. Looks like this ...
>
> not ok 16 - examples/shootout/regexdna.pir
> # Failed test (t/examples/shootout.t at line 103)
> [...]
> # Segmentation fault (core dumped)
> [...]
> I am running kubutu
James Keenan via RT wrote:
On Sun Jul 08 12:27:06 2007, jkeen at verizon.net wrote:
t/examples/shootout.t is failing even worse today than yesterday.
Here's the weekly update: shootout continues to fail on Darwin ... but
it's continuing to pass on Linux (which I've upgraded to Debian 4.0).
On 15/07/07, James Keenan via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun Jul 08 12:27:06 2007, jkeen at verizon.net wrote:
> t/examples/shootout.t is failing even worse today than yesterday.
Here's the weekly update: shootout continues to fail on Darwin ... but
it's continuing to pass on Linux (whi
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 10:45:59AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 10:07:34PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > It seems to run correctly on gentoo running on a sparc.
>
> Is gentoo sparc an architecture with 64 bit pointers (and longs)?
>
> Nicholas Clark
Hi Nicholas
On Sun Jul 08 12:27:06 2007, jkeen at verizon.net wrote:
> t/examples/shootout.t is failing even worse today than yesterday.
Here's the weekly update: shootout continues to fail on Darwin ... but
it's continuing to pass on Linux (which I've upgraded to Debian 4.0).
kid51
t/examples/shootout...
On Saturday 14 July 2007 02:45:59 Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 10:07:34PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It seems to run correctly on gentoo running on a sparc.
>
> Is gentoo sparc an architecture with 64 bit pointers (and longs)?
I started to wonder the same thing. How d
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 10:07:34PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It seems to run correctly on gentoo running on a sparc.
Is gentoo sparc an architecture with 64 bit pointers (and longs)?
Nicholas Clark
On Sunday 08 July 2007 14:45:53 Bob Rogers wrote:
>From: James E Keenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 15:18:21 -0400
>
>On Debian 4.0 Linux, t/examples/shootout.t is failing even more tests
>than yesterday. See attached.
>
>kid51
>
> I get the same failures on Su
From: James E Keenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 15:18:21 -0400
On Debian 4.0 Linux, t/examples/shootout.t is failing even more tests
than yesterday. See attached.
kid51
I get the same failures on SuSE 9.0 GNU/Linux, Parrot r19701. Here's an
interesting observati
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 03:26:14PM -0400, James E Keenan wrote:
> t/examples/shootout.t is failing even worse today than yesterday.
> [li11-226:fresh] 538 $ prove -v t/examples/shootout.t
> t/examples/shootout1..20
> # Looks like you failed 8 tests of 20.
> dubious
> Test returned s
t/examples/shootout.t is failing even worse today than yesterday.
[li11-226:fresh] 538 $ prove -v t/examples/shootout.t
t/examples/shootout1..20
# Failed test (t/examples/shootout.t at line 103)
# Exited with error code: [SIGNAL 11]
# Received:
#
# Expected:
# Ack(3, 9) = 4093
#
not ok
On Debian 4.0 Linux, t/examples/shootout.t is failing even more tests
than yesterday. See attached.
kid51
[li11-226:fresh] 538 $ prove -v t/examples/shootout.t
t/examples/shootout1..20
# Failed test (t/examples/shootout.t at line 103)
# Exited with error code: [SIGNAL 11]
# Received:
Failed for me to day on Debian 4.0 Linux:
[li11-226:parrot] 510 $ prove -v t/examples/shootout.t
t/examples/shootout1..20
ok 1 - examples/shootout/ack.pir
ok 2 - examples/shootout/binarytrees.pir
ok 3 - examples/shootout/fannkuch.pir
ok 4 - examples/shootout/fasta.pir
ok 5 - examples/shootou
On Wednesday 04 July 2007 15:17:33 Mark Glines wrote:
> It helps, thanks. Glad to know I can't just blame gentoo.
> After doing the binary search I mentioned earlier and finding that it
> started breaking in svn r19441, there was some discussion in the IRC
> channel. The important bit is:
>
> [
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:56:48 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > This is on gentoo linux x86. I ran Configure.pl with no arguments.
> > Apparently this test passes on chromatic's linux box, and on
> > particle's win32 box, but fails on my gentoo box and particle's
> > ubuntu box. So its a bit spora
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 01:28:30PM -0700, Mark Glines wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:18:59 -0700
> Mark Glines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, while I agree that the "crashing on NULL rep" bug needs to be
> > fixed, I've been mostly focusing on staring at regexdna.pir, hoping
> > to find a fix f
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:18:59 -0700
Mark Glines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, while I agree that the "crashing on NULL rep" bug needs to be
> fixed, I've been mostly focusing on staring at regexdna.pir, hoping
> to find a fix for the "passing a NULL rep in the first place" bug.
The behavior of th
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 12:10:37 -0500
Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Problem 2, why is this test case passing a NULL pointer all of a
> > sudden, exposing Problem #1? Presumably, this used to work.
>
> That I can't tell. All I'm looking at is the underlying C code,
> where it seems to
On Jul 3, 2007, at 12:02 PM, Mark Glines wrote:
Problem 1, why does string_replace() crash when passed a NULL rep
argument?
Because there are derefs inside the function.
Problem 2, why is this test case passing a NULL pointer all of a
sudden, exposing Problem #1? Presumably, this used to
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:34:29 -0700
"Andy Lester via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sooo... I'm not sure if the "rep" argument is NULL for the same
> > *reason* as the above script (a comment from Coke has made me
> > paranoid that a DOD run may be to blame), but should this emit an
> > error m
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:46:54 -0700
Mark Glines (via RT) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/parrot $ ./parrot
> "/home/paranoid/parrot/t/examples/shootout_16.pir"
> [cgt]gggtaaa|tttaccc[acg] 3 a[act]ggtaaa|tttacc[agt]t 9
> ag[act]gtaaa|tttac[agt]ct 8
> agg[act]taaa|ttta[agt]cct 10
> a
# New Ticket Created by Mark Glines
# Please include the string: [perl #43481]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=43481 >
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail List of Failed
--
35 matches
Mail list logo
