[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2.....
From: |
Mike Thomas |
Subject: |
RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2..... |
Date: |
Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:57:57 +1000 |
Hi Camm.
| Great! On the standard tests, we no longer have any issues with
| compiler version and/or C optimization level, provided
| -fomit-frame-pointer is removed, right?
As mentioned in an earlier email the release package will use and require
gcc 3.3.1 as used for the tests.
I just built GCL with gcc 3.3.3 and binutils 2.15.90 (20040222) and then
Maxima and got Vadim's error. I expect gcc 3.4.0 is also not going to work.
==========================================================================
; - Compiling module "special-functions"
; - Compiling source file
; "c:/lang/source/gcl/maxima-2004-04-24/src/specfn.lisp"
Compiling c:/lang/source/gcl/maxima-2004-04-24/src/specfn.lisp.
End of Pass 1.
End of Pass 2.
OPTIMIZE levels: Safety=2, Space=2, Speed=2
Finished compiling binary-gcl/specfn.o.
; - Loading binary file "binary-gcl/specfn.o"
Loading binary-gcl/specfn.o
Error in CONDITIONS::CLCS-LOAD [or a callee]: Caught fatal error [memory may
be
damaged]
Fast links are on: do (use-fast-links nil) for debugging
Broken at FILLARRAY. Type :H for Help.
1 (Continue) Retry loading file "binary-gcl/specfn.o".
2 (Abort) Return to top level.
dbl:MAXIMA>>
==========================================================================
| Just a note here -- 2.6.2c2 should not only run without crashing, but
| should report no errors.
Is some kind of auto logging of error forms retained?
My understanding is that if a form is printed on the console during the test
then it has failed and that is the only record. Is that correct?
I have been using the head branch RT as I was under the impression it had
not been backported to stable - I now understand I was mistaken.
My repeat test with the stable branch RT so far has done 7300 (200 3)
iterations without error.
| > I copied the 2.6.2 source into a modified Axiom source tree but
| the build
| > dies with the error shown at the very bottom of this email. This I will
| > also leave to the experts.
| >
|
| :-(. OK, this is (so far the only, to my knowledge) test 2.6.2 will
| fail on windows. We'll get to this in 2.7.x.
Agreed re 2.7.0.
I believe that I may not have done the test I thought I had done as I keep
getting output from the Axiom build consistent with a 2.7.0 version of
"o/unexnt.c" - either I've copied the wrong directory, the file is being
patched durin the Axiom build, or I've got something else wrong. I'll
investigate further as I would like to clearly delineate the boundaries of
2.6.2
Cheers
Mike Thomas
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Mike Thomas, 2004/06/05
- RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Mike Thomas, 2004/06/07
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Camm Maguire, 2004/06/08
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Matt Kaufmann, 2004/06/08
- RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Mike Thomas, 2004/06/08
- RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Mike Thomas, 2004/06/08
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Matt Kaufmann, 2004/06/08
- RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Mike Thomas, 2004/06/08
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Camm Maguire, 2004/06/12