[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] ensure scrutiny doesn't walk nodes more th

From: Mario Domenech Goulart
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] ensure scrutiny doesn't walk nodes more than once
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 23:05:28 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.91 (gnu/linux)

Hi Felix,

On Wed, 30 May 2012 22:15:22 +0200 (CEST) Felix <address@hidden> wrote:

> The attached patch fixes a problem with the scrutinizer which causes
> nodes to be walked more than once. A case detected by Christian and
> Mario turned out that this behaviour (which is known - see bug #751)
> can cause code to make incorrect assumptions about argument types and
> so drop necessary type checks.
> ...
> The tests all seem to pass (with the applied patch and after a
> complete self-compile with the patched compiler). Still, this is 
> a non-trivial change and may break stuff.
> This patch fixes bug #751 (and #855 which is a duplicate of the
> former).

Thanks for your patch.

I've built chicken with it (with bootstraping) and run make check.
Everything seems to work.  The test case for #855 works fine too.

I've run salmonella with that chicken on the full set of eggs for
Linux.  The diff against the salmonella log run on 2012-05-30's morning
is here:

Salmonella for the chicken with the patch for #751 was run with the
--keep-repo option, so it didn't set the local egg repo empty after
installing each egg.  That's why there are some extra differences
against the log for 2012-05-30's morning (which doesn't use

The only relevant differences are the test results for zmq and
svn-client.  Coincidently, both are mysteries.  Some svn-client tests
started failing out of the blue on 2012-05-18 and keep failing.  If I
run salmonella on it using the same chicken as the one which fails for
the daily salmonella, it works.

There's a specific zmq test that have been consistently failing on  However it works with your patch. (OTOH, if I remeber
correctly, Moritz said he could not reproduce the failure.)

So, as far as I can tell, your patch doesn't break anything.  If nobody
has objections, I'd like to apply it.

Best wishes.

reply via email to

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