[developers] Newer 64-bit builds cause Non-structure argument error

Stephan Oepen oe at ifi.uio.no
Sun Aug 12 12:05:56 CEST 2012

hi again, mike,

i just checked in new (32- and 64-bit) LOGON binaries.

the MRS comparison problem you reported was caused
by bogus LNK information (`<>', no content) on predicate
symbols.  it seems this was introduced by a code change
(from february 2012, though the first builds that included
it probably date to mid-may) i had made.  i have changed
the LNK creation to avoid the bogus outputs; i also made
LNK reading more robust, and further wrapped the MRS
comparison calls from [incr tsdb()], to catch conditions
thrown from the [incr tsdb()]-external code.

could you please see whether the latest builds work for
your purposes?  i am about to commit a revision to the
[incr tsdb()] database schema (to better support forest-
based treebanking), and it would be nice to know there
is a functional revision in SVN before releasing a not
fully backwards-compatible change ...

best, oe

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Michael Wayne Goodman
<goodmami at u.washington.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Stephan Oepen <oe at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>> it looks as if you parsed using the LKB for this run?
> Yes, our regression testing framework still parses with the LKB.
>> the MRSs in current/tiniest are not well-formed, due
>> to bogus characterization, e.g. "_dog_n_rel"<>.
> Ah yes, I see. I also confirm that I get these empty characterizations
> when parsing interactively in the LKB. I do not get this problem when
> parsing with cheap.
>> i can't quite guess how you arrive at this, but would
>> a (tiniest and self-contained, if possible) grammar to
>> debug this further.  do you have a suitable grammar
>> (where, i guess, just browsing the MRS in the LKB
>> should reveal the above problem on your side too)?
> Sure. I attach the "tiniest" grammar. Note that "tiniest" is not the
> only grammar showing the problem (indeed, I think all are), but I use
> it for debugging because of its small size. I thought that perhaps our
> REPP was malformed, since we started using one for tokenization
> recently, but that doesn't explain why different versions of the LOGON
> tree lead to different behavior. Anyway, I hope you have some better
> ideas than I do.
> Note that tiniest is not English. You can use the following sentences
> to test parsing:
> dog slept
> dog cat chased
>> cheers, oe
>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Michael Wayne Goodman
>> <goodmami at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Stephan Oepen <oe at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>>>> i would
>>>> like to think you should then also see this issue in the
>>>> interactive environment?
>>> You are correct; I now see the error when using the podium. I didn't
>>> think to turn on the MRS field.
>>>> if so, could you just tar(1) up the two profiles that you
>>>> compare in detail and send them to me?
>>> Certainly. I attach the gold and parsed profiles of the "tiniest" grammar.
>>> Many thanks,
>>> --
>>> -Michael Wayne Goodman
> --
> -Michael Wayne Goodman

More information about the developers mailing list