Thread overview
DStress report for DMD-0.127 -> DMD-0.128
Jul 21, 2005
Thomas Kuehne
Jul 22, 2005
Stewart Gordon
Jul 22, 2005
Thomas Kühne
Jul 25, 2005
Stewart Gordon
Jul 25, 2005
Thomas Kühne
Jul 25, 2005
Stewart Gordon
July 21, 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

DMD 0.127 -> DMD 0.128 (Linux)

FAIL -> ERROR
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/with_13.d
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/o/opAssign_02_D.d

XFAIL -> ERROR http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/__TIME__02.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/__TIMESTAMP__02.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/o/opAssign_01_A.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/o/opAssign_01_B.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/o/opAssign_02_A.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/o/opAssign_02_B.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/o/opAssign_03_A.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/o/cast_28.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/length_03.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/f/function_03.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/__FILE__02.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/d/delegate_15.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/__DATE__02.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/cast_10.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/associative_array_01.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/alias_16.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/alias_15.d

Pass: 1396 (+33)
XPass:  70 (+ 0)
Fail:  187 (-14)
XFail: 602 (-12)
Error:  33 (- 4)

hot spots: (217K)
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/www/dstress.html

complete report: (1,5M)
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/www/results.html

Thomas





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFC3+/G3w+/yD4P9tIRApaDAJ4pYsesbX9SIJr95jnwdFxT2xb+yACeJHC4
qwcXeD//IkLsru6XiURoEOg=
=OiOS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
July 22, 2005
Success rate up from 86.7% to 87.5%
Stability rate down from 98.4% to 98.3%

http://smjg.port5.com/pr/d/dstress.xls

Are the figures for versions that have disappeared off the table still available anywhere?  OK, so you may not have retested them recently, but the mere fact that some testcases have been added/changed/reclassified will have made a difference.

And how are undefined testcases supposed to be listed?  I see abstract_01 to 04 have just disappeared, but array_initialization_02 and array_initialization_17_A to C are still filed under run.

They certainly should be displayed - highlighting ambiguities/inconsistencies in the spec is an essential part of helping to get the language up to scratch.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K- w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
July 22, 2005
Stewart Gordon schrieb:
> Success rate up from 86.7% to 87.5%
> Stability rate down from 98.4% to 98.3%
>
> http://smjg.port5.com/pr/d/dstress.xls
>
> Are the figures for versions that have disappeared off the table still available anywhere?  OK, so you may not have retested them recently, but the mere fact that some testcases have been added/changed/reclassified will have made a difference.

The raw data is still available: http://dstress.kuehne.cn/raw_results

How to create a result table:

1) download the test suite
svn co http://dstress.kuehne.cn

2) compile (www/GenReport.java)
javac GenReport.java

3) generate result table (raw_results)
java cn.kuehne.dmd.dstress.GenReport linux-i686_dmd-0.093
linux-i686_dmd-0.095 ... > big_table.html

> And how are undefined testcases supposed to be listed?  I see abstract_01 to 04 have just disappeared, but array_initialization_02 and array_initialization_17_A to C are still filed under run.
Added link: http://dstress.kuehne.cn/undefined/

The documentation for the array_initialization test cases is logical consistent, but definitely requires a cleaner rewording.

Thomas



July 25, 2005
Thomas Kühne wrote:
<snip>
> The documentation for the array_initialization test cases is logical
> consistent, but definitely requires a cleaner rewording.

I don't understand.  How does

http://www.wikiservice.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DocComments/Arrays#Contradiction

constitute logical consistency?

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K- w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
July 25, 2005
In article <dc2eit$1hbq$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...
>
>Thomas Kühne wrote:
><snip>
>> The documentation for the array_initialization test cases is logical consistent, but definitely requires a cleaner rewording.
>
>I don't understand.  How does
>
>http://www.wikiservice.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DocComments/Arrays#Contradiction
>
>constitute logical consistency?

"If any members of an array are initialized."

I'll use an example to explain the context:

type[3] a = [ 1:2, 3 ] => [type.init, 2, 3]; // legal int[3] a = [ 1:2, 3 ] => [??, 2, 3]; // illegal

It nowhere says that the coder has to initialise all elements. Thus if the coder doesn't explicitly initialise some array members the compiler has to deal with them.

The troublesome wording of the reasioning in the doc seems to cause some confusion.

Thomas


July 25, 2005
Thomas Kühne wrote:
> In article <dc2eit$1hbq$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...
>> Thomas Kühne wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> The documentation for the array_initialization test cases is logical
>>> consistent, but definitely requires a cleaner rewording.
>> I don't understand.  How does
>>
>> http://www.wikiservice.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DocComments/Arrays#Contradiction
>>
>> constitute logical consistency?
> 
> "If any members of an array are initialized."
> 
> I'll use an example to explain the context:
> 
> type[3] a = [ 1:2, 3 ] => [type.init, 2, 3]; // legal
> int[3] a = [ 1:2, 3 ] => [??, 2, 3]; // illegal

Built-in types have default initialisers too.  Moreover, read the sample code on that page again.

> It nowhere says that the coder has to initialise all elements. Thus if the coder
> doesn't explicitly initialise some array members the compiler has to deal with
> them.
<snip>

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/memory.html#uninitializedarrays

"Arrays are always initialized in D."

So if what you say follows, then either

    int[3] a;

would have to be illegal, or the words "If any members of an array are initialized" would be redundant.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K- w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.