World: r4wp

I'm probably blind to where it's stated, but where would someone 
happening on Rebol on GitHub know to use CureCode for issue reporting 
instead of GitHub's own issue tracker? On the Rebol blog Andreas 
asked to turn off the GitHub tracker - if that's going to be done, 
the CureCode link should be very visible on the main GitHub project 
page.

CureCode link could be somewhere near the top of the README.

Otherwise there'd be no indication that CC should be used at all.

Good news, the first set of Win32-related build fixes has been merged.

is R3 still alpha, and can we get the splash text to say it's now 
Apache2.  Thanks

Andreas, thanks for the Windows build changes. Works fine here with 
VS2012 installed. Question re. size - the exe seems about twice as 
big as the r3.exe before open sourcing - is the debug version being 
built by default?

Hi, Rebol code as been released but I do not understand how people 
are organizing.
Who is going to fix the bugs ?
Is there a committee forming ?
Are there hidden discussion channels ?

It will crystalize in a couple of weeks. So, at the moment, a lot 
start by branching, getting the whole thing build and fixing small 
parts what they think is important.

So, we have several repositories you need to track and merge from 
in your own line.

If there is anything I can do to help, please ask me.

Saphirion is building up a repository with a nightly-build infrastructure. 
We are currently working on these things:
- Win32 builds, mostly done

- automatic check of other repositories for changes and pulling changes 
for test-builds
- merging our host-kit to get View and R3-GUI
- cross-compiling for Win, OSX & Linux

Beside fixing some anyoing bugs using debug builds, one of the first 
things I'm interested in is, taking a look to move to 64bit.

Than we will extend R3-GUI and the automatic test-framework. The 
latter is used to regression test all R3 builds over and over again. 
We currently have about 50 cases that crash R3. These need to get 
fixed.

Hope to see an official group formed soon.

Howeverm good work Rober. Your  investment on REBOL has proven to 
be successful. Now your group is free to move.

The infrastructure I'm thinking about is, that you always know one 
stop to get the latest pre-build R3 releases. Since we use R3, it 
will be under active development from us. We will fix / extend things 
as we need them.

And, at the moment we are getting an overview about the code, its 
structure etc.

Yes I know, your work is driven by your needs and that of your customers.

Looks, like merging our host-kit is mostly done. Than we have a single 
R3 EXE with View

my results after fixing bug#1633 and the ECVT function:


2.101.0.4.4 16-Dec-2012/22:29:25+1:00 Total: 4343 Succeeded: 3950 
Test-failures: 53 Crashes: 10 Dialect-failures: 0 Skipped: 330

My results, with your fixes:

2.101.0.4.4 16-Dec-2012/23:22:17+1:00 Total: 4344 Succeeded: 3948 
Test-failures: 55 Crashes: 11 Dialect-failures: 0 Skipped: 330

(gcc 4.7.2, glibc 2.16)

test-failures 55? Are those the rounding issues?

Yes.

Why don't I experience the problem?

Older GCC, maybe?

Let me try building with an older GCC to see if that changes anything.

how do I check the gcc version?

gcc -v

gcc version 4.6.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5)

...and glibc version?

Look in the package manager

apt-cache show libc6 | grep Version

[ladislav-:-lkub64]:/r3/make$ apt-cache show libc6 | grep Version
Version: 2.15-0ubuntu10.3
Version: 2.15-0ubuntu10.2
Version: 2.15-0ubuntu10

Andreas, it looks like you have a new test as well?

(Total 4344)

I found the "total" number to be not particularly reliable.

GCC 4.3.2 compiled binary doesn't have the round regressions:

16-Dec-2012/23:42:06+1:00 2.101.0.4.2 Total: 4333 Succeeded: 3950 
Test failures: 53 Crashes: 11 Dialect failures: 0 Skipped: 330

(Differing total again.)

Hmm, that may need a fix...

The last result is GCC 4.3.2 + glibc 2.7 at compile time, glibc 2.16 
at runtime.

How come you have Crashes: 11?

How would I find out?

run-safe and diff the full log?

To see what's missing?

those are the ones marked as #crash

But I have "crashes: 11" for RT-built A111 on this machine as well.

#r3crash

yes, that is in the test source. I guess that you do not use the 
latest tests

I use the tests as cloned a few hours ago.

aha, let me check