[cffi-devel] LispWorks 5.0/5.1 and LONG-LONG support

[Chun Tian (binghe)]

>
> 2008/4/7 Chun Tian (binghe) <binghe.lisp at gmail.com>:
>> Thanks for fix that. With your new patch, I can run CFFI's test-op  
>> on LWL64
>> 5.0 now.
>
> I've pushed it to the repository. BTW, I just found your patch from a
> few months ago, which I somehow missed:
> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.cffi.devel/1222> it looks exactly
> the same as the one I came up with. Sorry about that.

Yes, and that's why I send to mail list again when I have another  
chance: LispWorks 5.1 released.
For all, glad to see this patch be merged.

>
>
>
>> Test on LWL64 5.0 has 28 unexpected failures, more than 5.1 (which  
>> has 18
>> unexpected failures)
>> For details, see in attach.
>>
>> So, what else can I do for you? Does these failure tests means bugs  
>> or
>> feature lost in CFFI's LW support?
>
> Most likely, 5.1 fails less tests due to bugfixes.

Ah... good

>
>
> FUNCALL.DOUBLE, DEFCFUN.DOUBLE
>
> These fail because libm is not loaded. Should be fixed now.
>
> FUNCALL.DOUBLE26,  FUNCALL.FLOAT26, DEFCFUN.BFF.1, DEFCFUN.BFF.2,
> DEFCFUN.DOUBLE26, DEFCFUN.FLOAT26, CALLBACKS.LONG,
> CALLBACKS.LONG-LONG, CALLBACKS.FLOAT, CALLBACKS.FUNCALL.2,
> CALLBACKS.DOUBLE26.FUNCALL, CALLBACKS.FLOAT26,
> CALLBACKS.FLOAT26.FUNCALL
>
> These are most likely bugs in Lispworks's 64-bit FFI. Some of those
> tests are pretty twisted but I'd give priority to
> CALLBACKS.{LONG,LONG-LONG,FLOAT,FUNCALL.2} which are pretty simple
> tests.
>
> If you these matter to you, I suggest you report them to Lispworks.
> You'll probably make their life easier (and have better results) if
> you translate the tests to LW's FFI. (And you'd be making sure it's
> not a CFFI bug.)

Actually, I can't feel them until I can run these tests ...
I'll try to look into them, and report to LW. If they're planning to  
release another patch bundle for 5.0, that will be nice for more FFI  
bug fixed. Thanks for give me this note.

>
>
>
> FOREIGN-GLOBALS.READ-ONLY.1
>
> I get this failure as well, I'll look into it when I get a chance.
>
>
> STRING.ENCODING.UTF-16.BASIC, STRING.ENCODINGS.ALL.BASIC.
>
> These are bugs in CFFI, babel or cffi-tests that I have to look into.
> They fail on all lisps/platforms.

Great, I just thought why my SBCL on darwin still didn't pass all  
these tests ...

>
>
> -- 
> Luís Oliveira
> http://student.dei.uc.pt/~lmoliv/