Re: [HACKERS] (: JDBC+(Sun ~3:pm MST) CVS :) -also question about regression tests

"Thomas G. Lockhart" wrote:
>The other good possibility is for Oliver to develop a patch kit (he has done
> so
>already) which we can include in the v6.3 distribution to be applied only to
>linux/glibc2. When the beta settles down perhaps Oliver can generate a new p
>atch
>kit which we can include?

I'm happy to remake the patch in a week or so. However I'd like to be clear
what you think is 'Linux/glibc-specific' (and therefore undesirable); obviously
it is better to make changes as general as possible.

I'm attaching the previous patch I made (which, of course, may not
actually work with the current release - I haven't tried yet) so as to comment
on it:

1. I use `#if __GLIBC__ < 2' to test for glibc, where the change is only
for glibc. So I use it to force HAVE_INT_TIMEZONE to be undefined
and to redefine TMODULO(); incidentally, I used the hint in the existing
source that modf() was sometimes broken and chose to use glibc's
unbroken modf().

[ Incidentally, is modf() _still_ broken on whatever platforms it was
broken on? ]

2. The second set of changes are to do with unnecessary printing of n.00
instead of n, where the test was whether fsec is non-zero. With the
glibc version, fsec is often non-zero but integer, so I substituted
the test (fsec != rint(fsec)) for (fsec != 0). This seems to me to
be a completely general change that will work correctly on all
implementations.

Now I can understand that you may choose to ignore the existence of glibc
for the standard code (not that I agree, mind you) but I really don't see
how I could make the changes any more general than I have.