vm merged to master

vm merged to master

[Andy Wingo]

Hey all,

I went ahead and merged VM to master. Things went fine after a couple of
manual merges, though `(procedure-property apply 'arity)' needs some
work -- see the log for 5442b3a5989a118f2addf3190eab2e27d65e0658.

I should be happy but really I'm just tired ;) Can people please check
this out, give it some pounding and report any errors to the list.

Errors running external code modules are especially appreciated --
existing code should still work, with very few exceptions.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: vm merged to master

[Neil Jerram]

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> Hey all,
>
> I went ahead and merged VM to master. Things went fine after a couple of
> manual merges, though `(procedure-property apply 'arity)' needs some
> work -- see the log for 5442b3a5989a118f2addf3190eab2e27d65e0658.
>
> I should be happy but really I'm just tired ;) Can people please check
> this out, give it some pounding and report any errors to the list.

See
http://www.ossau.uklinux.net/guile/snapshots/guile-master-20090314.log.
AFAICT from a quick look:

- The main build looks fine...

- ...but the usual make check tests don't seem to be attempted anymore.

- make distcheck fails; looks like because vm-i-*.i not included in
the distribution (i.e. EXTRA_DIST).

Regards (and thanks!),
        Neil

Re: vm merged to master

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> I went ahead and merged VM to master.

Great!

> Things went fine after a couple of
> manual merges, though `(procedure-property apply 'arity)' needs some
> work -- see the log for 5442b3a5989a118f2addf3190eab2e27d65e0658.

Right, that won't work if `apply' is a program.  The question is: what
should we do with procedure properties?  Before the VM, they could be
used both with subrs and Scheme closures.  I think it would be nice if
we could extend them so that they worked transparently with programs as
well, maybe by attaching per-program procedure properties lazily.  What
do you think?

> I should be happy but really I'm just tired ;) Can people please check
> this out, give it some pounding and report any errors to the list.
>
> Errors running external code modules are especially appreciated --
> existing code should still work, with very few exceptions.

The only troubles I had so far are:

  - the `object-ref' limitation to 256 objects;

  - `current-reader' not taken into account;

  - circular references among modules (previously worked around via
    autoloads) not supported---but this is a good thing, it's an
    opportunity to remove kludges.  :-)

I'll eventually proceed with the merge in the BDW-GC branches.

Thanks,
Ludo'.

Re: vm merged to master

[Greg Troxel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 254 bytes --]


My autobuild failed this morning (1000Z) during the build phase:

  http://autobuild.josefsson.org/guile/log-200903140604763094000.txt

It had previously been failing in make check:

  http://autobuild.josefsson.org/guile/log-200903130603258959000.txt


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 193 bytes --]

Re: vm merged to master

[Andy Wingo]

On Sun 15 Mar 2009 01:01, Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com> writes:

> My autobuild failed this morning (1000Z) during the build phase:

I believe this problem is fixed. Please let me know if you find others.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: vm merged to master

[Andy Wingo]

Hi,

On Sat 14 Mar 2009 14:19, Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

> - make distcheck fails; looks like because vm-i-*.i not included in
> the distribution (i.e. EXTRA_DIST).

I have not yet poked distcheck, but non-srcdir builds do work as of now.
I don't know what the deal with your make check issue is; can you
reproduce it with a fresh checkout?

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: vm merged to master

[Andy Wingo]

Heya Ludo,

On Sat 14 Mar 2009 15:36, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

>> `(procedure-property apply 'arity)' needs some work
>
> Right, that won't work if `apply' is a program.  The question is: what
> should we do with procedure properties?

You jump questions ;)

 1) Procedure properties do work on programs. They just aren't
    serialized to disk. But some serializations set properties on the
    resulting procedure -- e.g. define*.

 2) Programs do have properties -- program-properties, i think the
    accessor is.

 3) Should arity be accessed via procedure-properties? I think not.
    Logically properties are cached values, not computed values, whereas
    arity can be computed.

 3.5) Should arity even be represented like that? The recent addition to
    (ice-9 session), procedure-arguments, is another take on that
    question.

 4) For some reason I like numbered lists recently? Please take it as
    some way of organizing my thoughts, it's not intended to be pedantic
    ;)

> Before the VM, [procedure-properties] could be used both with subrs
> and Scheme closures.

They still can.

>   - the `object-ref' limitation to 256 objects;

We spoke of this on IRC, for those that weren't there. Actually, for
those that don't know: #guile is a friendly place. We actually have a
night shift going during the week, if you drop in between 21h and 24h
CET, people are likely hacking away :-)

>   - `current-reader' not taken into account;

I want to fix this soon.

>   - circular references among modules (previously worked around via
>     autoloads) not supported---but this is a good thing, it's an
>     opportunity to remove kludges.  :-)

Is this really the case? Can you make a test case?

> I'll eventually proceed with the merge in the BDW-GC branches.

Great, I'm looking forward to that :-))

Cheers,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: vm merged to master

[Neil Jerram]

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Sat 14 Mar 2009 14:19, Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
>
>> - make distcheck fails; looks like because vm-i-*.i not included in
>> the distribution (i.e. EXTRA_DIST).
>
> I have not yet poked distcheck, but non-srcdir builds do work as of now.
> I don't know what the deal with your make check issue is; can you
> reproduce it with a fresh checkout?

No I can't.  A fresh checkout (a couple of days ago) worked fine.
(i.e. all the tests were run and passed).

In fact I realize now that I was being quite stupid... my script for
generating the daily snapshots just doesn't run "make check" at all.
Sorry!

Regards,
        Neil