On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 06:25:50PM +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> >BTW, this is a perfect example of why it's not a good idea to allow
> >minor regression failures to go unfixed --- people become desensitized.
> >I know I've been completely ignoring ECPG-Check buildfarm results
> >for awhile now.
I was aware of this Tom, but didn't find the time to dig into it yet.
> there was also some discussion off-list last week with Michael - I have
> arranged for an account on that box for him but I'm not sure if he
> already found time to investigate.
I did today. This seemed like a strange one, but apparantly a gcc
ABI-bug workaround interfered with the compiler used here because the
workaround wasn't covering all positions.
make check now gives a full list of OKs on Stefan's machine. Thanks for
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes(at)jabber(dot)org
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Gavin Sherry||Date: 2007-02-02 09:05:48|
|Subject: Re: --enable-debug does not work with gcc|
|Previous:||From: Jeremy Drake||Date: 2007-02-02 08:54:30|
|Subject: Re: writing new regexp functions|