Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: Interpretation of random tester output

[Paul F. Dietz]

Camm Maguire wrote:
> Greetings, and thanks, Paul!
>
> 1) Your clear and very helpful explanations agree with my guesses as
>    to what the output was saying.  But I'm still having a quandary.
>    After adjusting for the latest fix, I'm running the tester again
>    and found another form.  I eval the :unoptimized-form with
>    arguments given in :vals, then the optimized form, and lastly I
>    compile the latter and run the compiled version on the same
>    arguments, and come up with the same answer all three times.  (I
>    take the (lambda form, and change lambda to defun foo, could that
>    possibly be the difference?)
>
>    The example of which I speak is attached.

This looks like it wasn't pruned...

> 2) How long does one have to abort and find the g, y etc. variables
>    set?

...LOOP-RANDOM-INT-FORM does groups of 2000 iterations before it
reduces anything.  So, wait for those progress numbers to reach
the next line.  I should probably make it do this continually.


> 3) What can :kind be besides optimized-form?

It can be a (printed representation of) a compiler error, meaning
the compile aborted, it can be :(un)optimized-form, meaning an error
occured during evaluation of the (un)optimized form, or it can
be :different-results, meaning they evaluated successfully, but
computed different things.

The irreproducibility of the error might be related to stack
corruption, or some problem in compiling the code of random-int-form.lsp
itself.  You might try just loading random-int-form.lsp instead of
compiling and loading it (this should not slow down the testing
significantly.)

        Paul