freenode/#sbcl - IRC Chatlog
Search
14:38:05
nyef
stassats: I'm aware of how it happens. I'm some amount of the way through the process myself. You happen to be much further along when it comes to IR1.
17:29:31
|3b|
does that include all the ones that start threads and let DEFTEST try to kill them at the end?
17:31:30
stassats`
i had a rough fix for interrupt problems, but i've lost and don't remember what it did
17:31:32
|3b|
as far as i could tell that is the problem with :all-threads-have-abort-restart hanging
17:42:43
stassats`
scymtym_: i think after i mark all tests as :broken-on :win32 you could also start running the test suite
17:46:18
scymtym_
stassats`: even if the test suite finishes reliably, there will be no detailed reports since i patch the required functionality into the test harness during the build
18:00:43
stassats`
safepoints are nice, and the compiler instrumentation seems to be adequate, but the runtime part should be just thrown out and rewritten
18:02:06
stassats`
it's already hard as it is getting concurrency code right, but when you have to wade through undocumented code it's 10x harder
18:14:05
stassats`
interrupt-thread is not that important for applications, but a must for interactive development
18:24:20
stassats`
there is support for cmd.exe color, i guess msys2 i had used way back when adding colors to test output used cmd.exe
18:50:16
nyef
Maybe the solution is to document how safepoints work, then make the decision on throwing out the current runtime implementation or not?
18:52:13
scymtym_
stassats`: tests finished: https://ci.cor-lab.org/job/sbcl-master-windows/label=Windows_7_64bit/1433/console (this is not the most recent commit)
18:54:49
|3b|
ACTION wonders if "skipped" tests should be split into "not applicable" and "too broken to even try to see if it works"
18:55:52
|3b|
ACTION similarly thinks "expected failure" might not suggest quite the right thing as far as implementation quality... "known failure" or something might be closer
18:58:16
|3b|
ACTION is thinking about how windows build sounds a lot better if it can reliably finish its test suite with no unexpected failure/unhandled error, even if the actual implementation hasn't changed