Re: [HACKERS] float8 regression failure (HEAD, cygwin)

From: "Adrian Maier" <adrian(dot)maier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] float8 regression failure (HEAD, cygwin)
Date: 2006-08-01 11:30:07
Message-ID: cd30ef8c0608010430r318f46c3g11371224a18a742b@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On 20/07/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Reini Urban <rurban(at)x-ray(dot)at> writes:
> > BTW: HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT_64 is defined, so INT64_IS_BUSTED is defined also.
>
> You sure? INT64_IS_BUSTED should *not* be set in that case --- it's
> only supposed to be set if we couldn't find any 64-bit-int type at all.
>
> As for the regression test failure, it's odd because it looks to me that
> the actual test output is an exact match to the default "float8.out"
> file. I'm not sure why pg_regress chose to report a diff against
> float8-small-is-zero.out instead. This may be another teething pain
> of the new pg_regress-in-C code --- could you trace through it and see
> what's happening?

Apparently the regression test is comparing the results/float8.out
with expected/float8-small-is-zero.out because of the following line
in
src/test/regress/resultmap :
float8/i.86-pc-cygwin=float8-small-is-zero

I've changed that line to :
float8/i.86-pc-cygwin=float8
and the regression test ended successfully : "All 100 tests passed."

I don't know why there are several expected results for the float8 test,
depending on the platform. Is the modification ok?

I've attached the patch, and cc'ed to pgsql-patches.

Cheers,
Adrian Maier

Attachment Content-Type Size
patch_float8.diff application/octet-stream 609 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-08-01 11:43:09 Re: Online index builds
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2006-08-01 11:04:09 Feature Freeze

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-08-01 11:49:32 Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived
Previous Message Florian G. Pflug 2006-08-01 08:48:20 Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived