gcl-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gcl-devel] Latest ansi-test fixes


From: Camm Maguire
Subject: Re: [Gcl-devel] Latest ansi-test fixes
Date: 06 Oct 2002 00:16:38 -0400

"Paul F. Dietz" <address@hidden> writes:

> Camm Maguire wrote:
> > Greetings!  I've just checked in some fixes bringing the number of
> > failed tests (for me) down to one.  A few comments:
> > 
> > 1)  I cleared up a few compiler warnings for the built in .lsp files
> >     in lsp/.  I don't yet fully understand packages, so the changes
> >     might still need some work.  
> > 
> >     a) Eliminated (in-package 'system) from defstruct.lsp.
> 
> Are you using the package tests I wasn't loading?  If so, do they
> run through at all?  If they do, I'll uncomment the load forms
> from gclload2.lsp.

Just a further note that I think I cleared your package issue you
brought up on the website.  This may enable (at least partially), your
package tests.

> 
> >     d) The one remaining failure I don't yet understand, and would
> >     like some clarification:
> > 
> >             Improper subtype: SIMPLE-BASE-STRING of SIMPLE-BIT-VECTOR
> >             Improper subtype: SIMPLE-BASE-STRING of SIMPLE-VECTOR
> >             Improper subtype: SIMPLE-BASE-STRING of BIT-VECTOR
> >             Improper subtype: BASE-STRING of BIT-VECTOR
> >             Test TYPES-4 failed
> >             Form: (TYPES-4-BODY)
> >             Expected value: 0
> >             Actual value: 4.
> > 
> >     What condition makes these improper?  I looked at the test
> >     code but don't understand it yet.
> 
> This looks busted.  I'll look into it.
> 
> 
> > 4) We seem to be moving at a reasonable clip in the ansi compliance
> >    direction, though much work doubtlessly remains.  We hadn't
> >    targeted ansi-compliance for the 2.5.0 release.  Is this work
> >    nevertheless still the highest priority for most people?  Is anyone
> >    else having more severe troubles which should be addressed first?
> >    Also, at the current rate, how far off is "reasonable"
> >    ansi-compliance, in units of months?
> 
> You seem to be fixing ANSI problems as fast as they are found, so
> the time would seem to be controlled by how fast we can get everything
> tested adequately.  I'd guess three to six months?
> 
> I've just checked in tests for the 'characters' section of the spec.
> There are four failing test cases:
> 
>    -- #\Rubout is incorrectly reported to be a graphic character
>         (GRAPHIC-CHAR.2)
>    -- CHAR-NAME is producing incorrect strings on several characters
>       (CHAR-NAME.[234])
> 

These should be fixed too.

Take care,

>       Paul
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Camm Maguire                                            address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]