[Swift-devel] duplicated job submission in swift-0.92?

[Michael Wilde]

I think we mist-spoke: The posted release 0.92 also exhibits the twice-each bug as far as I acn tell.

Mihael, Justin: can you test asap to confirm or refute that observation?

Thanks,

- Mike

which swift: ~/swift/rev/swift-0.92/bin/swift

com$ swift -version
Swift svn swift-r4157 cog-r3056

com$ cd ~/swift/lab
com$ cat zz3.swift
int arr[];

arr[0]=1;
arr[1]=2;

foreach a in arr {
  trace("for", a);
}

com$ swift zz3.swift
Swift svn swift-r4157 cog-r3056

RunID: 20110401-1645-yyy87p39
Progress:
SwiftScript trace: for, 2
SwiftScript trace: for, 1
SwiftScript trace: for, 1
SwiftScript trace: for, 2
Final status:
com$ 


----- Original Message -----
> I think both are good as they are.
> 
> Would you like me to send it?
> 
> Mihael
> 
> On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 20:57 -0500, Michael Wilde wrote:
> > And I will send this to swift-user:
> >
> > "Dear Swift Users,
> >
> > On March 29 we discovered that the Release 0.92 branches of the
> > Swift and CoG trees were changed after the release and a concurrency
> > bug was introduced. If you are running Swift from this *source code*
> > base, please revert back to a known-working release such as the 0.92
> > binary release if at all possible.
> >
> > We're working on restoring the 0.92 SVN branch to the correct state
> > and will report back to this email list when that is done."
> >
> > Anything else to say? Feel free to send this out, adjusted as
> > needed, or just tell me what to change and I will.
> >
> > - Mike
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > Please check this proposed warning on the Downloads page and let
> > > me
> > > know if its what we need there:
> > >
> > > http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/~wilde/swift/downloads/index.php
> > >
> > > I also fixed the 0.91 typo (but the downloads dont actually work
> > > from
> > > this test web. I think they will once this is committed and pushed
> > > live).
> > >
> > > - Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 20:14 -0500, Michael Wilde wrote:
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > We decided the following:
> > > > > > > - I will revert the changes in the 0.92 branch
> > > > > > > - re-commit bug fixes that were committed after the merge
> > > > > > > - merge the 0.92 branch to trunk
> > > > > > > - fix the problems in trunk
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds good. But when and how does the fix get to users?
> > > > >
> > > > > The package(s) are fine. Though we should probably also have a
> > > > > source
> > > > > package. The merge was done after the package(s) were uploaded
> > > > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > swift site.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, great!
> > > >
> > > > > This only affects folks who have checked out from SVN the 0.92
> > > > > branch
> > > > > after the merge 9 days (or so) ago.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm - I question that. The release we use, based on 0.92 on
> > > > Beagle,
> > > > shows the twice-each error, and it was made on Feb 25, about 35
> > > > days
> > > > ago. Does this merit clarification?
> > > >
> > > > > We should send an email to the user list once this is fixed.
> > > > > We
> > > > > may
> > > > > also
> > > > > want to send an email warning them not to check out from SVN
> > > > > but
> > > > > download the precompiled package instead.
> > > >
> > > > OK. I cant say that this will reach everyone. Perhaps some
> > > > status
> > > > notes on the Download page are in order. The 0.91 link there is
> > > > wrong,
> > > > so we need to fix that page anyways.
> > > >
> > > > > I am a bit confused though. I would have expected the release
> > > > > to
> > > > > come
> > > > > with some announcement of some form.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. We kept this low profile because we were trying to
> > > > coordinate
> > > > it with a Web change that we never accomplished. And we've lost
> > > > the
> > > > habit of swift-user announcements but got to get back to doing
> > > > that.
> > > > So, yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Either create a 0.92.1 release (sounds hard based on above)
> > > > > > or create a 0.93 release (in which case should we create the
> > > > > > 0.93
> > > > > > branch from trunk as soon as this is fixed?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How long to re-test? (Thats a question for Sarah, Justin,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > Ketan)
> > > > > > Could this include the Cray support mods?
> > > > >
> > > > > No! Fixing a problem is not a venue for introducing untested
> > > > > things
> > > > > into
> > > > > a release.
> > > >
> > > > I meant the Cray feature for 0.93 not 0.92.1
> > > > Yes, that should be tested.
> > > > But its being used pretty heavily.
> > > >
> > > > - Mike
> > > >
> > > > > But it could be discussed separately :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Mihael
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Michael Wilde
> > > > Computation Institute, University of Chicago
> > > > Mathematics and Computer Science Division
> > > > Argonne National Laboratory
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Swift-devel mailing list
> > > > Swift-devel at ci.uchicago.edu
> > > > http://mail.ci.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/swift-devel
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michael Wilde
> > > Computation Institute, University of Chicago
> > > Mathematics and Computer Science Division
> > > Argonne National Laboratory
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Swift-devel mailing list
> > > Swift-devel at ci.uchicago.edu
> > > http://mail.ci.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/swift-devel
> >

-- 
Michael Wilde
Computation Institute, University of Chicago
Mathematics and Computer Science Division
Argonne National Laboratory