More from TheTrunk

http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1663

SLICE-IntervalFix-FromTrunk-Alexandre_Bergel.1 in the InBox

If you fill an issue for the first time, please read "How to report  
bugs"
at http://www.pharo-project.org/community/issue-tracking

Pharo core version: 11112

http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6456

A very simple example to illustrate the bug:

| x |
x := (1.0 timesTwoPower: 53).
(x to: x + 2) size.
x to: x+2 do: [:i | Transcript cr; show: i printString]

Thanks to Nicolas (aka nice)

For IntervalTest:
Before loading the slice:
233 run, 233 passes, 0 expected failures, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0  
unexpected passes

After loading the slice:
234 run, 234 passes, 0 expected failures, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0  
unexpected passes

Thanks Nicolas for the fix,
Alexandre

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.







--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.






_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

I tried to understand
>
>
>
> A very simple example to illustrate the bug:
>
> | x |
> x := (1.0 timesTwoPower: 53).
> (x to: x + 2) size.
> x to: x+2 do: [:i | Transcript cr; show: i printString]

it is normal that it still loops forever after loading the slice?

Stef

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Yes, that's the bug, identified by Nicolas

Alexandre


On 25 Dec 2009, at 10:49, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.






_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Yes but when I load the fix
the bug is still there.
Did you slice changes this behavior?
or the slice is just about adding a test that fails?







_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

2009/12/25 Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>:
I thought it was already in Pharo, wasn't it ?
The fix only apply to this one (Interval>>do:):

(x to: x+2) do: [:i | self doSomethingWith: i]

not to this one (Number:>#to:do:):

x to: x+2 do: [:i | self doSomethingWith: i]

The second one is inlined by compiler as something like
i := x.
end := x+2.
[i <= end] whileTrue: [
   self doSomethingWith: i.
   i := i+1]

Converting to a (step*index+start) pattern would cost consumption of
additional temporary variable slots and complexified code for every
inlined #to:do: loop.
I did not find any satisfying solution yet, just to make silly loop on
Float work, so by now this remains a known limitation.
General rule: avoid using interval of Float. Don't use to:by:do: with
a Float receiver nor a Float step.

Nicolas

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> I thought it was already in Pharo, wasn't it ?
> The fix only apply to this one (Interval>>do:):

Ok, but part of your fix was not in Pharo.
With SLICE-IntervalFix-FromTrunk-Alexandre_Bergel.1 , it is now in.

Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.






_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project