From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark H Weaver Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Guile 2.0.6 - some tests fail Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 06:55:37 -0400 Message-ID: <871uhbna3a.fsf@tines.lan> References: <506D52E8.7090603@redhat.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1349520962 25950 80.91.229.3 (6 Oct 2012 10:56:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:56:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Jan Synacek Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 06 12:56:08 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TKS3A-0005RZ-Hh for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Oct 2012 12:56:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44663 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TKS34-0004On-LJ for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Oct 2012 06:55:58 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52301) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TKS32-0004Oe-Ix for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Oct 2012 06:55:57 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TKS30-0006jT-Oj for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Oct 2012 06:55:56 -0400 Original-Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:46273) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TKS30-0006iA-Iy for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Oct 2012 06:55:54 -0400 Original-Received: from 209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.91.212] helo=tines.lan) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TKS2r-0007b6-Th; Sat, 06 Oct 2012 06:55:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <506D52E8.7090603@redhat.com> (Jan Synacek's message of "Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:12:08 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 96.39.62.75 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:14932 Archived-At: Jan Synacek writes: > when I run 'make check', some guile tests fail and I'm not sure why [1, 2]. > > [1] http://jsynacek.fedorapeople.org/guile/check-guile.log > [2] http://jsynacek.fedorapeople.org/guile/check-guile-fails.log (only FAILs) Quoting from [2] (but rearranging the order somewhat): > XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char=? #\A #\a > XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char=? #\A #\B > XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char=? #\B #\A > XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char<=? #\B #\A > XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char>? #\A #\A > XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char>? #\A #\a > XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char>? #\A #\B > XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char>=? #\A #\a > XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char>=? #\A #\B > XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char-ci=? #\A #\B > XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char-ci=? #\B #\A > XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char-ci XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char-ci XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char-ci XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char-ci<=? #\B #\A > XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char-ci>? #\A #\A > XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char-ci>? #\A #\a > XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char-ci>? #\A #\B > XFAIL: chars.test: basic char handling: comparisons: char-ci>=? #\A #\B These are not failures in Guile itself, but rather inappropriate uses of 'expect-fail' in test cases where #f is the expected result. You needn't worry about them, and I have fixed these test cases on the stable-2.0 branch. > XFAIL: eval.test: map: documented? > XFAIL: eval.test: define set procedure-name: procedure-with-setter > XFAIL: goops.test: defining classes: define-class: bad init-thunk > XFAIL: list.test: append!: wrong argument: improper list and empty list > XFAIL: list.test: append!: wrong argument: improper list and list > XFAIL: list.test: append!: wrong argument: list, improper list and list > XFAIL: list.test: append!: wrong argument: circular list and empty list > XFAIL: list.test: append!: wrong argument: circular list and list > XFAIL: list.test: append!: wrong argument: list, circular list and list These are expected failures, i.e. reminders to Guile developers to improve the implementation. I just fixed the first three 'append!' cases (checking for improper lists) on the stable-2.0 branch, and will look into fixing the others at some point, but you needn't worry about them. > FAIL: ftw.test: file-system-fold: test-suite (never enter) > FAIL: ftw.test: file-system-fold: test-suite/lib.scm (flat file) > FAIL: ftw.test: scandir: no select > FAIL: ports.test: %file-port-name-canonicalization: absolute canonicalization from ice-9 These are genuine problems that most users haven't run into AFAIK, and we should try to find the underlying cause. Obviously they are all filesystem related, so the first question that comes to mind is: What filesystem type is your Guile source directory stored on? Can you think of anything else unusual about your system that might affect filesystem behavior? Thanks very much for bringing these problems to our attention. Mark