This is the mail archive of the
kawa@sourceware.org
mailing list for the Kawa project.
Re: kawa numerics unstable
- From: alex mitchell <lexaay at gmail dot com>
- To: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
- Cc: "kawa at sourceware dot org" <kawa at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 00:48:33 +0800
- Subject: Re: kawa numerics unstable
Yes, that's correct - the breakage actually starts from rev 6376. I just
tested with 6375 and my code works. For 6376 I get
java.lang.ClassCastException: java.lang.Integer cannot be cast to
gnu.math.Numeric. I'll try to track this down in my code and see if I can
isolate a test case.
For the performance problems, I have a feeling it may not be directly
related to kawa. I recall having to switch over from Java 5 to Java 6 on my
Mac a few weeks back, as kawa would no longer compile. I don't remember
seeing the performance issues before switching over, and my code runs as
fast as before on Windows and Ubuntu.
The compile error using Java 5 on MacOS is:
(compiling rnrs/unicode.scm to kawa.lib.rnrs.unicode)
rnrs/unicode.scm:110:3: no known slot 'normalize' in java.lang.Object
rnrs/unicode.scm:110:39: no known slot 'NFD' in java.lang.Object
rnrs/unicode.scm:113:3: no known slot 'normalize' in java.lang.Object
rnrs/unicode.scm:113:39: no known slot 'NFKD' in java.lang.Object
rnrs/unicode.scm:116:3: no known slot 'normalize' in java.lang.Object
rnrs/unicode.scm:116:39: no known slot 'NFC' in java.lang.Object
rnrs/unicode.scm:119:3: no known slot 'normalize' in java.lang.Object
rnrs/unicode.scm:119:39: no known slot 'NFKC' in java.lang.Object
make[2]: *** [scm-classes.stamp] Error 255
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
Alex
On 9/20/09 11:51 PM, "Per Bothner" <per@bothner.com> wrote:
> On 09/19/2009 10:25 PM, alex mitchell wrote:
>> By the way, I already noticed some performance problems as a result of
>> recent changes (something between 6330 and 6365),
>
> The change to map int->java.lang.Integer instead of
> int->gnu.math.IntNum was revision 6376, so that doesn't
> seem to have been the performance problem, but it may
> be the cause of the breakage you're seeing.