Re: GSOC | Extending Common Lisp support

[Jamison Hope <jrh at theptrgroup dot com>]

On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:10 PM, Per Bothner wrote:

> Jamison, maybe you can put together a patch to use RunTestScript,
> including a started test and gnu/commonlisp/testsuite/Makefile.am
> changes?


Working on this. The least-intrusive-but-least-extensible way to
get RunTestScript working is just to do this:

> Index: gnu/kawa/util/RunTestScript.java
> ===================================================================
> --- gnu/kawa/util/RunTestScript.java	(revision 7243)
> +++ gnu/kawa/util/RunTestScript.java	(working copy)
> @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@
>    List<String> expectedErr = new ArrayList<String>();
>
>    String[] commentSyntaxTable = {
> +    "CommonLisp", ";;", "#|", "|#",
>      "Scheme", ";;", "#|", "|#",
>      "Q2", "#", null, null };


So that works. And I made the Makefile.am change (had to rerun aclocal
and automake and maybe autoconf before configure to get it to actually
change Makefile). But now I'm having a little philosophical dilemma
about how to craft a test script. Should I write to how it should
work, or how it's currently expected to work? I start out with this:

> (setq x 42)
> ;; Diagnostic: warnings.lisp:1:1: warning - no declaration seen for x

So far so good. If I then add

> (write x) (newline)
> ;; Output: 42

and run it, it fails with another "no declaration seen for x" diagnostic
on the (write x) line. That seems to be a difference between running  
kawa
with or without -f:

$ kawa --diagnostic-strip-directories -f gnu/commonlisp/testsuite/ 
warnings.lisp
warnings.lisp:1:1: warning - no declaration seen for x
42
$ kawa --diagnostic-strip-directories gnu/commonlisp/testsuite/ 
warnings.lisp
warnings.lisp:1:1: warning - no declaration seen for x
warnings.lisp:4:8: warning - no declaration seen for x
42

RunTestScript runs kawa like the latter, so fine, we'll add another
Diagnostic line. But if I then add

> (defvar list-of-numbers (list 1 2 3))
> (defun list-of-numbers (start end)
>   (if (> start end)
>       nil
>     (cons start (list-of-numbers (1+ start) end))))
>
> (write list-of-numbers)

in order to test the different namespaces, I get this other warning,  
which
seems like a bug:

warnings.lisp:12:1: warning - duplicate declaration for `list-of- 
numbers'


Especially considering the full -f/no -f output differences:

$ kawa --diagnostic-strip-directories -f gnu/commonlisp/testsuite/ 
warnings.lisp
warnings.lisp:1:1: warning - no declaration seen for x
42
warnings.lisp:15:17: warning - no declaration seen for list-of-numbers
warnings.lisp:15:34: warning - no declaration seen for 1+
(1 2 3)
$ kawa --diagnostic-strip-directories gnu/commonlisp/testsuite/ 
warnings.lisp
warnings.lisp:12:1: warning - duplicate declaration for `list-of- 
numbers'
warnings.lisp:1:1: warning - no declaration seen for x
warnings.lisp:4:8: warning - no declaration seen for x
warnings.lisp:15:17: warning - no declaration seen for list-of-numbers
warnings.lisp:15:34: warning - no declaration seen for 1+
warnings.lisp:17:8: warning - no declaration seen for list-of-numbers
42
#<procedure list-of-numbers>


That looks like running without -f (as RunTestScript does) just doesn't
work correctly for Lisp2 languages.


Should we change RunTestScript to pass -f, or try to figure out why
it's not respecting the separate namespaces?


--
Jamison Hope
The PTR Group
www.theptrgroup.com