[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2.....
From: |
Matt Kaufmann |
Subject: |
Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2..... |
Date: |
Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:43:09 -0500 |
Hi, Mike --
Thanks for your email and for the points you raised. I've made a note to look
into removing "nice" in all the workshop books' Makefiles (and perhaps
elsewhere) in favor of $(NICE), where NICE is set to nice in Makefile-generic
(which is included in the other Makefiles).
About .exe: The original extension of .gcl, ${LISPEXT}, is generated by some
ACL2 code. I'm tempted simply to generate .gcl.exe on Windows as the
extension, so then no $(EXE) would be necessary. Does that seem reasonable?
(Note that ${LISPEXT} is used in several places in Makefile in addition to the
one you pointed to.)
Thanks again --
-- Matt
From: "Mike Thomas" <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:41:44 +1000
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Importance: Normal
X-SpamAssassin-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0
X-UTCS-Spam-Status: No, hits=-228 required=180
Hi Matt.
You wrote some time ago regarding a problem I had testing GCL 2.6.2 on
Windows during ACL 2.8 workshop book certification:
| | The current one can be
| | obtained by way of
| | the installation instructions from the ACL2 home page, or directly at:
| |
| | ftp://ftp.cs.utexas.edu:/pub/moore/acl2/v2-8/acl2-sources/books/wo
| | rkshops.tar.gz
|
| | Testing the workshops books is icing on the cake, and may not add
| | enough to be
| | worth your trouble. (But since there _was_ an error, I'm glad we
| | tracked it
| | down.) Anyhow, I'm a little surprised actually that there
| weren't massive
| | failures using the old workshops/.
I optimistically replied:
| I'll let you know how it goes, perhaps this afternoon Australian time.
Well, sometimes an afternoon almost takes a fortnight on the internet, for
which my apologies; but here are the results (all clear on Windows including
workshops):
WINDOWS ACL 2.8 AND WORKSHOP BOOK BUILD AND CERTIFICATION RESULTS
$ time make >make.log 2>&1
real 5m11.125s
user 0m1.571s
sys 0m1.864s
$ time make clean-books >certify-clean.log 2>&1; time make
certify-books-short
>certify-short.log 2>&1
real 3m23.031s
user 1m50.440s
sys 1m35.414s
real 7m12.078s
user 0m31.466s
sys 0m27.408s
$ time make clean-books >certify-clean2.log 2>&1; time make certify-books
>cert
ify.log 2>&1
real 2m57.015s
user 1m50.546s
sys 1m32.608s
real 149m32.328s
user 3m42.100s
sys 3m5.417s
The above certification ignores the workshops; the regression test below
does not.
$ time make clean-books >certify-clean2.log 2>&1; time make regression
>regress
ion.log 2>&1
real 3m41.734s
user 1m51.396s
sys 1m41.985s
real 297m30.188s
user 6m42.119s
sys 5m51.423s
MINOR WINDOWS MODIFICATIONS TO ACL 2.8 MAKEFILES
I modified the top level makefile to use the .exe file extension under MSYS:
===========================================================================
....
LISP = gcl
DIR = /tmp
ACL2_VERSION = v2-8
NONSTD =
EXE= .exe
...
===========================================================================
and
===========================================================================
...
move-new:
if [ -f nsaved_acl2.${LISPEXT}$(EXE) ]; then \
mv -f nsaved_acl2.${LISPEXT}$(EXE)
${PREFIXsaved_acl2}.${LISPEXT}$(EXE) ;
fi
...
===========================================================================
Before running the certifications I worked around what I believe is a bug in
MSYS by modifying the paths in the build generated "saved_acl2" script from
Windows to MSYS format ("/c/rumptdy/dumpty" rather than "c:/rumptdy/dumpty")
I also used a NICE "books/Makefile-generic" macro to circumvent the lack of
"nice" on Windows (probably not the best program to use when benchmarking
GCL anyway):
===========================================================================
NICE =
#NICE = nice
ACL2 = time $(NICE) ../../saved_acl2
(and in the Workshop Makefiles I just deleted nice as there were so many I
couldn't be bothered to do the full macro bit - perhaps for ACL 2.9 you
could incorporate all these changes to smooth the ride?)
===========================================================================
All this on a Windows XP 2.4 GHz P4 512 Mb machine, which was working on
other, generally light but occasionally very heavy, work.
Cheers
Mike Thomas.
- RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., (continued)
- RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Mike Thomas, 2004/06/08
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Camm Maguire, 2004/06/12
- RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Mike Thomas, 2004/06/14
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Matt Kaufmann, 2004/06/14
- RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Mike Thomas, 2004/06/14
- RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Mike Thomas, 2004/06/15
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Matt Kaufmann, 2004/06/15
- RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Mike Thomas, 2004/06/15
- RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Mike Thomas, 2004/06/28
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Camm Maguire, 2004/06/28
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2.....,
Matt Kaufmann <=
- RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Mike Thomas, 2004/06/28
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Camm Maguire, 2004/06/12
- RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Mike Thomas, 2004/06/14
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Camm Maguire, 2004/06/17
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Camm Maguire, 2004/06/07
Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Vadim V. Zhytnikov, 2004/06/07
Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Dennis Decker Jensen, 2004/06/07
Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Camm Maguire, 2004/06/07
RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2....., Billinghurst, David (CALCRTS), 2004/06/07