Hello,
We are almost there.
ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/1.8/ruby-1.8.0-preview6.tar.gz
matz.Available in PLD’s CVS.
Ari
Thanks, Matz.
Once again, RPMs are available here:
http://www.caliban.org/files/redhat/RPMS/i386/
Ian
···
On Thu 31 Jul 2003 at 17:51:40 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
We are almost there.
ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/1.8/ruby-1.8.0-preview6.tar.gz
–
Ian Macdonald | Two peanuts were walking through the New
System Administrator | York. One was assaulted.
ian@caliban.org |
http://www.caliban.org |
>
Has anyone been testing these on HP-UX? The last time I did was a CVS
snapshot not long after preview2… if no one else is running sets of tests
for HP-UX then I’ll find some time to do it.
I’m compiling it now for a ‘hello world’ test.
···
On Jul 31, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hello,
We are almost there.
ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/1.8/ruby-1.8.0-preview6.tar.gz
matz.
matz@ruby-lang.org (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote in message news:1059641505.377140.15008.nullmailer@picachu.netlab.jp…
Hello,
We are almost there.
ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/1.8/ruby-1.8.0-preview6.tar.gz
matz.
The only new compiler warning I get on osf1V5.1 (tru64 5.1) is:
does not contain a return statement. (missingreturn)
static VALUE
^
The rest are known environment warnings and signed/unsigned pointer
mismatches such as:
type of the pointer value “((f)->_ptr)” is “unsigned char”, which is
not compatible with “const char” because they differ by
signed/unsigned attribute. (ptrmismatch1)
const char *p = READ_DATA_PENDING_PTR(f);
----------------------------^
type of the pointer value “((f)->_ptr)” is “unsigned char”, which is
not compatible with “const char” because they differ by
signed/unsigned attribute. (ptrmismatch1)
const char *p = READ_DATA_PENDING_PTR(f);
----------------------------^
29 mismatches total, not very worried about them.
Doug
···
cc: Warning: socket.c, line 1571: Non-void function “unix_recv_io”
cc: Warning: io.c, line 869: In the initializer for p, the referenced
cc: Warning: io.c, line 959: In the initializer for p, the referenced
Hi,
I think this is a bug in preview6 related toWindows internal command.
C:>ruby -v -e “puts ver”
ruby 1.8.0 (2003-05-15) [i386-mswin32]
Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
C:>ruby -v -e “puts ver”
ruby 1.8.0 (2003-07-31) [i386-mswin32]
-e:1:in ``': No such file or directory - ver (Errno::ENOENT)
from -e:1
C:>ruby -v -e ‘p system(“ver”)’
ruby 1.8.0 (2003-05-15) [i386-mswin32]
Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
true
C:>ruby -v -e ‘p system(“ver”)’
ruby 1.8.0 (2003-07-31) [i386-mswin32]
false
Park Heesob
···
----- Original Message -----
From: “Yukihiro Matsumoto” matz@ruby-lang.org
To: “ruby-talk ML” ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org; ruby-dev@ruby-lang.org
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 5:51 PM
Subject: ruby 1.8.0 preview6
Hello,
We are almost there.
ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/1.8/ruby-1.8.0-preview6.tar.gz
matz.
Matz, maybe you could give a little guidance on what you want tested:
- the build process
- the ruby interpreter after the build is complete
- …?
Now, I imagine the answer is “everything”, but maybe you could give a little
guidance on what areas to pay particular attention to. Are there corner
cases that may not get hit unless someone intentionally tries to break them?
As to the build process, has anybody started making a checklist of systems /
configurations on which the distribution is known to build cleanly, maybe
using a wiki? Also, are there instructions on what to do if the build
process isn’t as simple as “configure; make; make test; make install” for a
particular platform? I don’t have access to any interesting hardware or
OSes, just RedHat 9, RedHat 7.3 and OS X…
For really putting things through their paces, does anybody know of some Ruby
software that really tests out the system? Does FreeRIDE do it? Would any
old FOX based program work? Any suggestions?
I’d like to help, and I have time slices that I could spend doing something in
between attempts at building a Linux kernel, but I’m not sure how to help.
Ben
···
On Thu July 31 2003 11:42 am, Brett H. Williams wrote:
I’m compiling it now for a ‘hello world’ test.
Hello,
In message “Re: ruby 1.8.0 preview6”
···
on Aug.01,2003 15:31:34, phasis@bcline.com wrote:
I think this is a bug in preview6 related toWindows internal command.
I’ve just fixed on CVS.
Thank you for your report!
Regards,
U.Nakamura usa@osb.att.ne.jp
ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/1.8/ruby-1.8.0-preview6.tar.gz
matz.Has anyone been testing these on HP-UX? The last time I did was a CVS
snapshot not long after preview2… if no one else is running sets of tests
for HP-UX then I’ll find some time to do it.I’m compiling it now for a ‘hello world’ test.
I got preview4(?) compiled and submitted a small fix for digest/sha2
COMPILATION ONLY, I didn’t run tests except for ruby -v
Unless there is explicit reason something might compile but not run…
hth,
Kero.
PS: second opinion always welcome, esp when on a different version of
HP-UX 
Hi,
I’m compiling it now for a ‘hello world’ test.
Matz, maybe you could give a little guidance on what you want tested:
- the build process
- the ruby interpreter after the build is complete
- …?
Yeah, right. I want you guys to check:
-
whether it compiles or not on any platforms (especially “rare”
ones, like linux-ia64, linux-ppc, etc.) -
whether it runs on those platforms (e.g. make test)
-
whether your “important” program runs or not. but you only need
to check once for 1.8 series, not every previews.
Thank you, everyone.
matz.
···
In message “Re: ruby 1.8.0 preview6 (what to test?)” on 03/08/01, Ben Giddings ben@thingmagic.com writes:
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
- whether it runs on those platforms (e.g. make test)
As I read this test, I can’t help but wish we had a little more focus on
Rubicon and it was included with the Ruby core. The question of “What
should I test?” might have a more obvious answer. Matz, any thoughts on
putting Rubicon in the core Ruby distribution (and replacing “make test”)?
Chad
Hi,
···
In message “Re: ruby 1.8.0 preview6 (what to test?)” on 03/08/01, Chad Fowler chadfowler@chadfowler.com writes:
As I read this test, I can’t help but wish we had a little more focus on
Rubicon and it was included with the Ruby core. The question of “What
should I test?” might have a more obvious answer. Matz, any thoughts on
putting Rubicon in the core Ruby distribution (and replacing “make test”)?
I promised Dave Thomas that rubicon or nearly equivalent test suites
will be bundled with 1.8.1.
matz.
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
As I read this test, I can’t help but wish we had a little more focus on
Rubicon and it was included with the Ruby core. The question of “What
should I test?” might have a more obvious answer. Matz, any thoughts on
putting Rubicon in the core Ruby distribution (and replacing “make test”)?I promised Dave Thomas that rubicon or nearly equivalent test suites
will be bundled with 1.8.1.
Which has a nice side-effect - we can remove all the version checking in
the tests if the test are in the repository alongside Ruby.
Cheers
Dave
Dave Thomas wrote:
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
As I read this test, I can’t help but wish we had a little more
focus on |Rubicon and it was included with the Ruby core. The
question of “What |should I test?” might have a more obvious answer.
Matz, any thoughts on |putting Rubicon in the core Ruby distribution
(and replacing “make test”)?I promised Dave Thomas that rubicon or nearly equivalent test suites
will be bundled with 1.8.1.Which has a nice side-effect - we can remove all the version checking
in the tests if the test are in the repository alongside Ruby.
This is great news, Matz (and a nice observation, Dave). There has been
a lot of work put into Rubicon, and it would be a shame for us not to
really make use of it. It would be wonderful to get it (and Ruby) to
the point that it could some day pass at 100% on every supported
platform. We’re pretty far from that goal as of now–especially on Windows.
This would really complement the recent talk of a formal specification
for Ruby. We could have an EBNF-ish grammar as a document and and input
to the parser generator, and Rubicon as an executable check of the
implemented interpreter. I’m imagining JRuby, NetRuby, and Cardinal all
validating themselves against this single, authoritative test suite.
Chad