Camelia, the Perl 6 bug

IRC log for #parrot, 2011-04-09

Parrot | source cross referenced

| Channels | #parrot index | Today | | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
00:01 benabik_ NotFound: Exactly. It's the human HLL version of PIR that performs very simple alterations before handing it to PIRCompiler (or pirate or whatever)
00:02 benabik_ NotFound: I called it a pre-processor because it doesn't actually try to compile it to code, just perform conversions of things like macros and heredocs.
00:02 dmalcolm joined #parrot
00:02 sorear pirate should not be used for machine-generated pir
00:03 sorear pirate's strengths are ease of adding features, especially to the parser
00:03 sorear it only makes sense to use pirate for HumanPIR
00:03 NotFound Then it doesn't make any sense to me.
00:03 benabik_ sorear: Access to a level lower than "file of PIR" is useful for things like PAST nodes with inline PIR
00:04 davidfetter left #parrot
00:04 sorear well after forking HumanPIR and using pirate to implement it, we can take a hacksaw to the InhumanPIR spec and IMCC's accumulated cruft
00:04 sorear benabik_: that's very easy to do with an NQP-based parser
00:05 sorear benabik_: use the HumanPIR compreg to turn an inline PIR chunk into a bunch of NewPOST nodes, which can then be inserted into PCT's output
00:07 NotFound What will be the advantage over directly generating that nodes?
00:08 benabik_ sorear: I would think that compregs returning POST woyld be odd, but I think I grok your general direction.
00:09 benabik_ NotFound: It would be ideal if HLLs didn't use inline PIR, but they're already in regular use in NQP at least.
00:09 sorear in particular, the source syntax uses inline PIR
00:09 sorear Q:PIR { ... };
00:09 benabik_ Maybe we need an "inline POST" PAST node. :-)
00:10 sorear so it's not just fixing the HLLs, it's also fixing the HLL users
00:10 benabik_ sorear: It gets used directly a couple of times too.
00:10 sorear benabik_: with a PCT-based compreg you can already say stuff like my $post := $cr.compile('foo', target => 'post')
00:11 sorear this is not perfect because it requires a syntactically valid compilation unit
00:12 NotFound No offence, but I'll probably prefer to binary write the PBCs rather than such schemes.
00:13 benabik_ NotFound: Perfectly valid. My GSoC is about trying to get PCT to do just that, after all. :)
00:14 benabik_ Anyway, GTG, TTYL
00:15 benabik_ left #parrot
00:31 dmalcolm left #parrot
00:49 cotto ~
00:53 Eduardow joined #parrot
01:07 KaeseEs .tv weed
01:07 KaeseEs wrong channel ._.
01:10 bubaflub joined #parrot
01:15 elmex left #parrot
01:15 elmex joined #parrot
01:44 woosley joined #parrot
01:56 ShaneC left #parrot
02:18 kid51 left #parrot
02:19 bubaflub left #parrot
02:25 whiteknight left #parrot
03:05 soh_cah_toa left #parrot
03:08 cotto Looks like I'll be talking at LinuxFestNW.
03:17 cotto dukeleto, ping
03:19 hudnix left #parrot
03:46 mtk left #parrot
03:52 mtk joined #parrot
04:18 atrodo cotto> ping
04:19 ShaneC joined #parrot
04:23 sorear cotto: cool, parrot related?
04:30 atrodo cotto> unping
04:43 woosley left #parrot
04:50 jsut left #parrot
04:55 jsut joined #parrot
05:22 cotto sorear, yes
05:23 cotto atrodo, pong
05:24 cotto atrodo, unpong
05:45 woosley joined #parrot
06:00 theory left #parrot
06:08 fperrad joined #parrot
06:37 Herat joined #parrot
06:51 nopaste "fperrad" at 192.168.1.3 pasted "forth error (since imcc_compreg_pmc merge)" (9 lines) at http://nopaste.snit.ch/39744
06:53 fperrad msg whiteknight forth is broken since imcc_compreg_pmc merge, see http://nopaste.snit.ch/39744
06:53 aloha OK. I'll deliver the message.
07:08 Herat left #parrot
07:37 fperrad_ joined #parrot
07:39 fperrad left #parrot
07:39 fperrad_ is now known as fperrad
07:40 utsl left #parrot
07:40 utsl joined #parrot
07:54 dodathome joined #parrot
08:06 pjcj left #parrot
08:07 pjcj joined #parrot
08:35 TonyC left #parrot
08:39 jaffa4 joined #parrot
08:39 jaffa4 hi
08:39 TonyC joined #parrot
08:39 jaffa4 What is the state of jit in parrot?
08:40 tadzik ask bacek
08:41 * bacek appear from flame and smoke
08:41 bacek jaffa4, it's in prototyping mode
08:41 cotto jaffa4, we used to have a jit, but it wasn't maintainable and we ripped it out.  bacek is working on jitting our ops with llvm, but our ops need to be rewritten in a more restrictive subset of C before they can be parsed well enough to be translated into llvm (or anything else).
08:42 jaffa4 what is ops?
08:45 jaffa4 how long will it take to do the jit?
08:45 cotto basic operations that Parrot knows how to do
08:46 cotto jaffa4, we don't know but it will happen eventually
08:47 jaffa4 is current prototype in repository already?
08:48 cotto it's in the opsc_llvm branch, iirc
08:49 cotto jaffa4, what's your interest in Parrot?
08:49 cotto also, welcome
08:50 jaffa4 mainly as end user
08:50 cotto jaffa4, what kind of use?
08:51 jaffa4 through perl 6
08:51 cotto ]ok
08:51 cotto ok
08:51 jaffa4 I also made a small language that generates pir.
08:51 jaffa4 I also made a small language that is compiled into pir.
08:51 jaffa4 very small
08:51 jaffa4 parrot is not very fast, right?
08:52 jaffa4 Compared to Java?
08:52 cotto Parrot needs to be faster, among other things.
08:53 jaffa4 what else does it need?
08:53 JimmyZ joined #parrot
08:53 jaffa4 another questino
08:54 jaffa4 What do you need to produce a more restrictive C?
08:54 cotto direct POST->pbc translation, jittable ops, improved calling conventions, better separation between imcc and everything else, ...
08:55 jaffa4 improved calling conventions?
08:55 cotto jaffa4, bacek will go through our ops code and figure out which C constructs make the code difficult to jit.  Once we have a list of those, we'll write up some documentation on what ops can and can't include.
08:55 cotto they do more work than they need to
08:56 jaffa4 what about just producing C and compiling it?
08:56 cotto that's what we do now, but it's not workable if we want to generate something other than C
08:56 jaffa4 WHat does not it work?
08:56 jaffa4 I cannot see any problem with that
08:57 jaffa4 C looks like a good idea
08:57 jaffa4 to me at least.
08:57 cotto It works fine, but we can't jit from there.
08:57 jaffa4 what about using an external compiler?
08:57 jaffa4 I am sure that they can handle C.
08:58 jaffa4 Sorry what works fine?
08:58 * JimmyZ thinks explanation is expensive.
08:59 jaffa4 then do not get involved, JimmyZ
09:00 cotto The system we have now (using C + magic) outputs C code that's compiled to an executable.  We can't use the current system in a different way because we don't have sufficient semantic knowledge of the C code at build time.
09:01 jaffa4 you tell me a lot of new things.
09:02 jaffa4 1. bytecode can be converted into C code now, Is it what you are writing?
09:02 cotto Bytecode can't currently be converted to C code.  It's executed by compiled C code.
09:02 jaffa4 What outputs C code then?
09:02 cotto ops2c
09:04 cotto compiling .ops files to C code is part of the build
09:04 jaffa4 pir becames pasm
09:05 jaffa4 if I remember correctly
09:05 jaffa4 What is the connection between pasm and ops?
09:05 jaffa4 Is it the same thing?
09:05 cotto pir and pasm are compiled directly to pbc
09:05 cotto or executed
09:05 jaffa4 What does ops appear?
09:06 jaffa4 pbc is executed through ops right?
09:06 cotto what do you mean?
09:06 jaffa4 pbc is executed through translated opsin C right?
09:06 jaffa4 pbc is executed through translated ops in C right?
09:07 cotto I think what you're saying is correct.
09:07 jaffa4 but it would be possible that instread of calling those C routines
09:08 jaffa4 they would be printed into a file.
09:08 jaffa4 generating a C file
09:08 JimmyZ I  guess that what JIT does?
09:09 jaffa4 Is this difficult?
09:09 jaffa4 which file interprets the byte code?
09:09 cotto we used to have something like that, but it wasn't reliable
09:10 jaffa4 Why?
09:10 cotto not usre
09:10 cotto *sure
09:10 TiMBuS i think just unrolling the core runtime would only barely increase speed though..
09:11 cotto jaffa4, it depends on what you mean by "interpret"
09:11 TiMBuS i mean all you're doing is getting rid of a big switch statement. switch statements are pretty darn fast?
09:11 jaffa4 I gues bytecode is interpreted
09:11 cotto What any given op does is defined by its .ops file
09:11 jaffa4 TiMBuS: who are you asking?
09:12 TiMBuS well, you i guess. im assuming that's your current idea
09:13 jaffa4 cotto, interpret means going through the byte as a stream, then using a case statement or an array that returns locations of functions that are called with arguments obtained from byteocde
09:13 TiMBuS remove the runtime loop by printing out each op in a big sequence, and then compiling it
09:13 jaffa4 that is what I mean too
09:14 cotto jaffa4, op dispatch and execution are different things.  src/runcore/cores.c does the op dispatch and runloop
09:14 TiMBuS yeah but that's not enough. a jit would turn each op into much less than that
09:16 jaffa4 you mean some kind of optimisations
09:17 TiMBuS yes.
09:17 cotto the compiled C code form the .ops files has all the functions that are run when ops are executed
09:17 jaffa4 so?
09:17 cotto *from
09:18 cotto You're asking about how ops are interpreted.  That's part of it.
09:20 jaffa4 cores.c need to be modified
09:20 jaffa4 to product a C file
09:21 jaffa4 or jit
09:21 TiMBuS what im saying jaffa4, is to make a fast C compiler backend for parrot, youd probably need to rewrite every existing opcode into a more optimized 'template' form of C, which youd then copy and paste and fill in the blanks during the compilation step. only then would you really have something that you want,
09:21 TiMBuS and frankly its just easier to emit native machine bytecode at this point
09:24 jaffa4 what is native machine bytecode?
09:24 jaffa4 Do you mean the machine language of a computer?
09:24 TiMBuS yeah
09:26 cotto jaffa4, are you a gsoc student?
09:26 jaffa4 Ino
09:27 cotto ok
09:29 jaffa4 IS fast core workign now?
09:30 cotto yes
09:30 jaffa4 the todo says
09:30 jaffa4 in cores.c
09:30 jaffa4 that it fails in test suites
09:34 JimmyZ there are some failed test in fast core, that's why is not the default
09:35 mj41 joined #parrot
09:38 jaffa4 What could the old jit do?
09:39 cotto fast is the default.
09:39 cotto that comment needs to go away
09:40 jaffa4 Where is the old jit?
09:41 cotto We ripped it out.  You'd have to look at an old version of Parrot.  I think it was still in 1.0.
09:41 jaffa4 it is not even in the reposiory
09:42 dalek parrot: 261dda2 | cotto++ | src/runcore/cores.c:
09:42 dalek parrot: decide no, remove todo comment
09:42 dalek parrot: review: https://github.com/parrot/parrot/commit/261dda24f2
09:43 cotto you could check out v1,0
09:43 cotto .
09:43 cotto It's not in a current version though.
09:44 cotto It's getting early.  I need to sleep.
09:44 cotto 'night
09:47 jaffa4 ok
09:54 JimmyZ left #parrot
11:26 whiteknight joined #parrot
11:33 mtk left #parrot
11:36 whiteknight good morning, #parrot
11:36 whiteknight I didn't even know we had a forth compiler on Parrot
11:40 mtk joined #parrot
11:55 Patterner left #parrot
11:56 Psyche^ joined #parrot
11:56 Psyche^ is now known as Patterner
11:57 whiteknight not only do we have a forth compiler, but apparently it's been working
11:58 dalek winxed: r942 | NotFound++ | trunk/winxedst0.cpp:
11:58 dalek winxed: diagnose operator exists not supported in stage 0
11:58 dalek winxed: review: http://code.google.com/p/w​inxed/source/detail?r=942
12:20 Kulag left #parrot
12:20 Kulag joined #parrot
12:21 jaffa4 are there different integer type under Parrot?
12:24 NotFound jaffa4: yes
12:24 jaffa4 I remember only integer tyoe under PIR
12:25 NotFound Where do you want to have it?
12:25 jaffa4 in PIR
12:25 jaffa4 code
12:26 NotFound You have int register and 'Integer' PMC.
12:26 jaffa4 but not int8
12:26 jaffa4 int 16
12:26 jaffa4 in32
12:26 jaffa4 int64
12:26 NotFound No
12:32 PacoLinux left #parrot
12:33 PacoLinux joined #parrot
12:35 dalek winxed: r943 | NotFound++ | trunk/winxedst1.winxed:
12:35 dalek winxed: delete emit_get method in OpExistsExpr, using the inherited one is fine
12:35 dalek winxed: review: http://code.google.com/p/w​inxed/source/detail?r=943
12:37 dodathome left #parrot
12:42 kid51 joined #parrot
12:46 ambs joined #parrot
13:18 hudnix joined #parrot
13:28 whiteknight msg plobsing if you have a chance can you look at the forth failure? http://nopaste.snit.ch/39744 it's packfile related and I dont have time to examine it today
13:28 aloha OK. I'll deliver the message.
13:33 NotFound whiteknight: What forth? http://trac.parrot.org/lan​guages/browser/forth/trunk ?
13:33 whiteknight github.com/parrot/forth
13:38 NotFound whiteknight: cannot reproduce
13:38 whiteknight really? weird
13:38 NotFound $ parrot forth.pbc hello.frt
13:38 NotFound Hello World!
13:38 NotFound This is Parrot version 3.2.0-devel built for amd64-linux.
13:39 whiteknight that parrot is after the imcc_compreg_pmc merge
13:40 NotFound Updating and rebuliding...
13:42 kid51 whiteknight: Re: http://trac.parrot.org/parrot/ticket/2088 Would there be anything in docs/user/pir/exceptions.pod that needs modification that could be causing this problem?
13:42 whiteknight kid51: I'm not sure. It's possible. I need to dig into the test and figure out where it's crapping
13:42 NotFound After updating, it doesn't pass its tests.
13:47 gbacon joined #parrot
13:49 whiteknight does it run that hello world example fperrad posed?
13:50 NotFound No
13:50 whiteknight okay, so that's the problem
13:50 kid51 Another POD file that might be causing that problem is: docs/user/pir/pmcs.pod
13:51 whiteknight kid51: what number is it skipping?
13:51 whiteknight kid51: and is there any way to print out the snippet for that number?
13:51 kid51 I'm still not sure what is happening.
13:52 kid51 t/examples/pod.t prepares a list of files with POD to be analyzed
13:52 kid51 I'm trying to see at what point in that list it starts to generate that error.
13:52 kid51 http://lists.scsys.co.uk/pipermai​l/catalyst/2009-July/023006.html
13:53 NotFound whiteknight: the compile function tailcalls into compreg'ed PIR. Is that supposed to work?
13:54 whiteknight NotFound: Yes, it should
13:54 whiteknight there is a test for that behavior in Parrot's suite
13:55 NotFound whiteknight: changing it to a call - return it works.
13:55 whiteknight damnit
13:55 whiteknight okay, so that's the solution
13:55 whiteknight tailcall into that compreg PMC is broken
13:55 NotFound Also, it will benefit from adding finalize to its exception handlers.
13:56 whiteknight :)
14:01 whiteknight I thought this damn bug was fixed
14:01 NotFound Workaround commited
14:02 whiteknight thanks
14:10 dodathome joined #parrot
14:21 zby_home joined #parrot
14:30 dalek parrot: ade5602 | NotFound++ | src/pmc/opcode.pmc:
14:30 dalek parrot: missing return in Opcode get_number vtable
14:30 dalek parrot: review: https://github.com/parrot/parrot/commit/ade5602c42
14:41 dalek parrot: b2ab0f3 | NotFound++ | src/multidispatch.c:
14:41 dalek parrot: declaring something as const and immediately casting away constness is pointless and dangerous
14:41 dalek parrot: review: https://github.com/parrot/parrot/commit/b2ab0f3b25
14:42 NotFound (Ignoring warnings)--
14:47 dalek parrot: abe179c | NotFound++ | src/pmc/packfileopmap.pmc:
14:47 dalek parrot: missing return in PackfileOpMap get_pmc_keyed_int vtable
14:47 dalek parrot: review: https://github.com/parrot/parrot/commit/abe179ccd6
14:50 dalek forth: 7d10105 | fperrad++ | / (2 files):
14:50 dalek forth: methos stdhandle is gone
14:50 dalek forth: review: https://github.com/parrot/forth/commit/7d101054af
14:50 dalek forth: 354d176 | fperrad++ | forth/ (2 files):
14:50 dalek forth: CodeString is gone
14:50 dalek forth: review: https://github.com/parrot/forth/commit/354d1766de
14:50 dalek forth: 5caedc1 | NotFound++ | forth/forth.pir:
14:50 dalek forth: workaround for .tailcall problem after imcc_compreg_pmc merge
14:50 dalek forth: review: https://github.com/parrot/forth/commit/5caedc1087
14:50 whiteknight now forth is appearing in the dalek feed
14:50 whiteknight not that I expect much traffic
15:03 mikehh kid51: ping
15:05 mikehh whiteknight: ping
15:13 preflex left #parrot
15:15 preflex joined #parrot
15:17 dodathome left #parrot
15:18 kid51 mikehh: pong
15:20 mikehh kid51: just added to TT #2088 - it looks as though the print is actually being executed
15:22 mikehh so that fragment with two print statements print 42 and print 43 seems to be the problem
15:23 mikehh so the changes brought in by the merge seems to be doing something different with print
15:25 kid51 Agreed.  When I delete the 2'print' statements, test passes.
15:25 kid51 Can you post that to ticket?  I have to go afk
15:27 mikehh that code fragment has not changer since 2008
15:35 woosley left #parrot
15:39 whiteknight pong
15:39 mikehh whiteknight: check out the last 3 comments on TT #2088
15:40 whiteknight I've been following along with the emails. Thanks mikehh++ and kid51++ for looking at this
15:41 mikehh it seems to me that the merge changed what the print is doing in the test as it passed before the merge
15:42 whiteknight is the test comparing what the output should be?
15:42 whiteknight I mean, what is causing the test to fail?
15:42 whiteknight or, what is the test expecting to happen?
15:43 mikehh what worries me (if the test is correct) it only gets picked up in one test that is not part of the regular tests
15:44 mikehh it seems that the test  fragment actually puts '42' and '43' in the output stream, which somehow did not happen before
15:44 dalek tracwiki: v21 | tcurtis++ | ParrotGSoC2011Students
15:44 dalek tracwiki: Add myself.
15:44 dalek tracwiki: http://trac.parrot.org/parrot/wiki/ParrotG​SoC2011Students?version=21&action=diff
15:48 whiteknight mikehh: Okay, that snippet by itself executes and does what I expect it to do when run directly
15:48 whiteknight so the question is whether the behavior changed and, if so, if it's a bug
15:49 mikehh whiteknight: right you are
15:52 whiteknight okay, the test executes the snippet as "./parrot -o /dev/null <filename> 2> <errfile>"
15:52 whiteknight and when I run that snippet with that command line, I get "4243" exactly as I expect
15:53 whiteknight I don't know what would have happened prior to the merge, but if it *didn't* have that output before, i think it's a bug
15:53 whiteknight er, I think it was abug
15:53 theory joined #parrot
15:54 mikehh there are some other print's in docs/pdds/pdd19.pir and they don't seem to cause a problem
15:56 whiteknight only :immediate and :postcomp would actually execute with that commandline sequence
15:58 mikehh so effectively you are saying that :immediate and :postcomp did not work correctly before and hence we need to cater to that in the test
15:59 ambs_ joined #parrot
16:01 ambs left #parrot
16:01 ambs_ is now known as ambs
16:04 fperrad left #parrot
16:08 fperrad joined #parrot
16:11 * mikehh afk for a bit
16:11 ambs left #parrot
16:13 kid51 left #parrot
16:16 Eduardow left #parrot
16:20 bubaflub joined #parrot
16:30 ambs joined #parrot
16:34 whiteknight mikehh: I suspect not. I mean, this is the behavior I would expect to be "correct"
16:34 whiteknight but then again, it's probably not specified anywhere
16:34 whiteknight we can bring it up at #ps
16:36 whiteknight It's not trivial to go back to the old behavior, but it is possible
16:47 ligne joined #parrot
16:50 Eduardow joined #parrot
16:51 cotto wtf.  melange just published a comment as public that I marked as private.
16:53 cotto melange-- melange-- melange--
16:57 bubaflub cotto: you're not the first
16:58 cotto and now it works
16:58 cotto melange-- melange-- melange--
16:58 cotto I doubt the student will see the comment, but blech
17:03 cotto seen justina
17:03 aloha Sorry, I haven't seen justina.
17:14 dalek cardinal: aa90763 | (Daehyub Kim)++ | src/parser/actions.pm:
17:14 dalek cardinal: modify coding miss
17:14 dalek cardinal: review: https://github.com/parrot/​cardinal/commit/aa90763483
17:19 TimToady left #parrot
17:20 sorear left #parrot
17:22 bubaflub that last commit on cardinal was from lateau++
17:35 rohit_nsit08 joined #parrot
17:36 rohit_nsit08 whiteknight: hello!
17:39 sorear joined #parrot
17:42 dodathome joined #parrot
17:43 whiteknight hello rohit_nsit08
17:44 whiteknight cotto: I suggest we do not use melange for private comments
17:44 whiteknight cotto: I suggest we just email them to each other
17:45 rohit_nsit08 whiteknight: Just watched a google tech talk on javascript engine v8 and i must say It was very cool :-)
17:45 whiteknight awesome
17:45 whiteknight link?
17:45 rohit_nsit08 whiteknight: It's on youtube , i downloaded it yesterday wait a sec
17:46 dalek parrot: 76f626a | petdance++ | compilers/imcc/pbc.c:
17:46 dalek parrot: consting, and cleaned up some splint warnings.
17:46 dalek parrot: review: https://github.com/parrot/parrot/commit/76f626ae0b
17:46 rohit_nsit08 whiteknight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrufJFBSoQY
17:46 rohit_nsit08 whiteknight: i liked the inline caching concept
17:47 whiteknight yes
17:47 nopaste "NotFound" at 192.168.1.3 pasted "Yet another experiment with prototype based objects" (93 lines) at http://nopaste.snit.ch/39754
17:48 NotFound whiteknight: take a look at that.
17:52 bubaflub NotFound: i know i offered before, but i thought i'd put it out there again - if you need help migrating Winxed to GitHub let me know.  i'm more than willing to help.
17:53 NotFound bubaflub: thanks, but I don't think I need it, the test I did some weeks ago had no problem.
17:53 bubaflub NotFound: ok, great.
17:54 dalek parrot: 7885632 | petdance++ | src/pmc/hashiterator.pmc:
17:54 dalek parrot: removed unnecessary interp arg
17:54 dalek parrot: review: https://github.com/parrot/parrot/commit/78856327d0
17:54 gbacon left #parrot
18:01 whiteknight NotFound: Oh, nice. I may want to "borrow" some of this code for Rosella
18:01 whiteknight or something like it
18:01 whiteknight I'm not happy with my current prototype library
18:01 NotFound whiteknight: the key issue is the overriding of find_method to work around the method cache.
18:04 whiteknight does that avoid the method cache? I thought the cache was searched first before the vtable override
18:05 whiteknight yeah, the cache is searched first
18:05 NotFound whiteknight: it does not avoid it, but returns to it a closure that does the real search when invoked.
18:05 whiteknight oh, right
18:05 whiteknight okay, that makes much more sense
18:06 NotFound Not very efficient, but it may allow test implementations of javascript object model.
18:06 whiteknight I've never seen getattribute_p_p_s_s before
18:06 moritz are you looking at 6model?
18:06 whiteknight oh wait, nevermind
18:06 whiteknight moritz: no, pure winxed
18:07 whiteknight NotFound: yes, this is almost exactly what we will need
18:07 NotFound Impure winxed, it needs pirops for low level operations.
18:07 whiteknight NotFound: would you mind if I added some of this to Rosella?
18:08 NotFound whiteknight: sure, borrow what you want.
18:09 whiteknight NotFound++
18:10 * whiteknight has to go run errands. Will be back later tonight
18:12 whiteknight left #parrot
18:14 dalek parrot: 677969b | petdance++ | src/pmc/unmanagedstruct.pmc:
18:14 dalek parrot: consting
18:14 dalek parrot: review: https://github.com/parrot/parrot/commit/677969b50b
18:25 gbacon joined #parrot
18:25 theory left #parrot
18:30 nopaste "NotFound" at 192.168.1.3 pasted "Yet another experiment with prototype based objects - more elaborated version" (133 lines) at http://nopaste.snit.ch/39755
19:10 zby_home left #parrot
19:19 TimToady joined #parrot
19:21 dalek parrot: 551242c | fperrad++ | tools/install/smoke_languages.pl:
19:21 dalek parrot: [languages] add a smoke test for Winxed
19:22 dalek parrot: review: https://github.com/parrot/parrot/commit/551242c5f9
19:33 gbacon left #parrot
19:34 rohit_nsit08 left #parrot
19:40 dalek parrot: 029a2cd | petdance++ | / (3 files):
19:40 dalek parrot: Consting, and shimmed an interp arg
19:40 dalek parrot: review: https://github.com/parrot/parrot/commit/029a2cd4cc
20:01 cotto dukeleto, ping
20:03 theory joined #parrot
20:14 jaffa4 left #parrot
20:25 fperrad left #parrot
20:49 soh_cah_toa joined #parrot
20:54 dodathome left #parrot
20:56 theory left #parrot
21:02 sirmacik joined #parrot
21:02 sirmacik hi there
21:02 sirmacik I'm trying tu build parrot from git but I've got the following error while trying to use fakeroot:
21:03 sirmacik ERROR: ld.so: object 'libfakeroot.so' from LD_PRELOAD cannot be preloaded: ignored.
21:03 sirmacik maybe someone here know how to deal with it?
21:06 ambs left #parrot
21:09 moritz where are you using fakeroot?
21:09 moritz and why?
21:10 tadzik building packages for Arch Linux
21:12 plobsing I run Arch and my libfakeroot.so is under /usr/lib/libfakeroot/. Perhaps you need to ldconfig.
21:15 sirmacik Mine also is in that directory
21:22 sirmacik there is no difference after running ldconfig
21:26 kid51 joined #parrot
22:00 plobsing sirmacik: are you able to run 'fakeroot' from the command line?
22:00 sirmacik yes
22:00 sirmacik it works fine on other packages
22:04 mikehh t/src/extend_vtable.t blows up completely with g++ build (coretest, smoke and src_tests) - see TT #2084
22:04 mikehh t/examples/pod.t fails - see TT #2088
22:04 mikehh all other tests PASS (pre/post-config, make corevm/make coretest, smoke (#14253) fulltest) at 3_2_0-339-g029a2cd - Ubuntu 11.04 beta i386 (g++)
22:11 plobsing sirmacik: what package exactly are you trying to build from source?
22:11 plobsing and where can I find the script to replicate it?
22:13 sirmacik I'm trying to make parrot-git package. Here is my pkgbuild based on parrot from repository: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/368691/
22:14 kid51 is now known as kid51_at_dinner
22:21 mj41 left #parrot
22:22 theory joined #parrot
22:46 particle1 joined #parrot
22:49 particle left #parrot
23:05 Coke left #parrot
23:07 kid51_at_dinner left #parrot
23:26 takadonet joined #parrot
23:29 plobsing sirmacik: I got the same problems when trying to build the package. I found a workaround by creating a symlink '/usr/lib/libfakeroot.so'.
23:29 Coke joined #parrot
23:34 takadonet left #parrot
23:37 mtk left #parrot
23:43 mtk joined #parrot
23:52 sirmacik thx for help plobsing (:

| Channels | #parrot index | Today | | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary

Parrot | source cross referenced