[armedbear-devel] CLOS / D-M-C tests failure DMC-TEST-MC.1 help requested

[Erik Huelsmann]

Even more puzzling:

There seems to be a difference in behaviour between the slime C-c C-c, C-c
C-r behaviour (compile a form, evaluate a region) and running a PROGN with
the forms from the slime repl.

Sure hope others can help out here. All I can do now is create the correct
D-M-C implementation but writing tests and verifying them for their
behaviour is not possible this way.

BTW: the PROGN and the C-c C-c approach probably differ in that one is
interpreted and the other compiled. So, it looks like an interaction
between compilation and D-M-C.

Bye,

Erik.

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> In an attempt to solve ticket 201 and everything related (now that I'm
> into it anyway), I've been staring at the failure of one of ABCL's own
> tests and can't seem to understand what's going on.
>
> So, DMC-TEST-MC.1 is failing because it uses a non-standard
> METHOD-QUALIFIER. STD-COMPUTE-EFFECTIVE-METHOD throws an error when
> matching the qualifiers of the defined methods with the method groups and
> finds that the method combination isn't one of type long-form. However, the
> problem is: it really *is* of type long form. However, this seems to happen
> *only* in the compiled case....s
>
> So, I inserted a trace:
>
> (eval-when (:compile-toplevel)
>    (trace mop::STD-COMPUTE-EFFECTIVE-METHOD))
>
> and extracted the test form from outside the test case, in order to be
> able to see the error triggered (RT just prints #<simple-error >):
>
> (dmc-test-mc.1 :k 1)
>
> The result is this backtrace:
>
>      [java]   0: (MOP::STD-COMPUTE-EFFECTIVE-METHOD
> #<STANDARD-GENERIC-FUNCTION DMC-TEST-MC.1 {10D3D99}>
>                           #<METHOD-COMBINATION {69B861}>
> (#<STANDARD-METHOD {C821EF}>))
>
> which clearly shows the method combination is of type METHOD-COMBINATION
> and not of type LONG-METHOD-COMBINATION.
>
> I do understand that this is the error, but I can't for the life of me
> figure out how we get into the situation that the method combination being
> instantiated is of the resulting type METHOD-COMBINATION...
>
> Any help on debugging or additional insights would be extremely
> appreciated!
>
>
> Bye,
>
> Erik.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/armedbear-devel/attachments/20120804/1eb136f5/attachment.html>