Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: Math::Pari patch for 5.10.0

by haoess (Curate)
on Mar 09, 2008 at 08:33 UTC ( #673073=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Math::Pari patch for 5.10.0
in thread Math::Pari patch for 5.10.0

I note you're running blead (5.11.0). The problem there might lie with something other than Math::Pari (eg Test::Harness).

I get the same error with a fresh compiled 5.10 and Test::Harness 3.10.

From where does one obtain the perl-5.11.0 source ?

Have a look at http://dev.perl.org/perl5/source.html.

-- Frank


Comment on Re^3: Math::Pari patch for 5.10.0
Re^4: Math::Pari patch for 5.10.0
by syphilis (Canon) on Mar 10, 2008 at 06:24 UTC
    I get the same error with a fresh compiled 5.10 and Test::Harness 3.10

    On my perl-5.10 I had Test-Harness-2.64. I updated to version 3.10, and Math-Pari still builds and tests flawlessly for me. Maybe you ought to switch to Win32 :-)))

    Sorry, I don't know why 'make test' reports that absurd "FAIL" for you. It may signify a problem with Math::Pari ... or it may signify a problem with something else.

    Cheers,
    Rob
      On my perl-5.10 I had Test-Harness-2.64. I updated to version 3.10, and Math-Pari still builds and tests flawlessly for me.

      I investigated further, here's my report:

      With perl5.8.8 make test runs fine, with 5.10.0 (and blead) it doesn't. Both perls use the same version of ExtUtils::Command::MM (6.44) and Test::Harness (3.10). Furthermore I isolated the test file which seem to cause this strange error, it's t/55_objets.t (sic!). This test file uses test_eng/Testout.pm, which loads pari-2.1.7/src/test/32/objets (at least on my system). I reduced this file to

      realprecision = 38 significant digits echo = 1 (on) ? truncate(1.7,&e) 1 ? \p57 realprecision = 57 significant digits ? length(divisors(1000)) 16 ? \q

      Now we run the t/5_objets.t test file:

      $ PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /opt/perl-33445/bin/perl5.11.0 "-MExtUtils::Comman +d::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/55_objets.t t/55_objets...... All 3 subtests passed Test Summary Report ------------------- Files=1, Tests=3, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.00 usr 0.00 sys + 0.04 cusr + 0.02 csys = 0.06 CPU) Result: FAIL Failed 1/1 test programs. 0/3 subtests failed.
      That's all for today, maybe it could help the Math::Pari people to find the bug.

      -- Frank

        Blead throws up a number of issues that I'll be taking a look at as time permits. (I don't have a lot of time right at the moment ... work is interfering again.)

        Firstly, when running the 5.11.0 test suite, op/alarm.t hangs, and killing the hang aborts the test procedure entirely - so I only got to run a small number of the test files.

        After installing 5.11.0, I couldn't even get the 'Makefile.PL' step of the Math-Pari build process to complete. It hangs at "...I will use assembler build of type 'ix86'". Killing the hang kills the entire process, so no makefile even gets written.

        While I'm at work tonight I'll try it out on my XP laptop. (I'm using Vista here at home.) Interesting ....

        Cheers,
        Rob
        Update: On my Windows XP box I get essentially the same error as you reported with Math::Pari.

        With 5.10.0 (but not 5.11.0) t/55_objets.t doesn't produce any problems when run as perl -Mblib t/55_objets.t. But when run as part of the 'make test' process (with both 5.10.0 and 5.11.0) I get a segfault during cleanup, when the script is about to exit after all of the tests have been successfully run. Strange that it doesn't affect Vista the same way.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://673073]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others meditating upon the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-07-23 03:04 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (131 votes), past polls