Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2001
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 09:50:11PM +0100, abigail@foad.org wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 10:39:43AM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 01:25:55AM -0000, abigail@foad.org wrote:
> > > ---------- op/int.t ----------
> > > op/int..............FAILED tests 8-9
> > > Failed 2/14 tests, 85.71% okay
> > > Failed Test Status Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > op/int.t 14 2 14.29% 8-9
> > > Failed 1/1 test scripts, 0.00% okay. 2/14 subtests failed, 85.71% okay.
> >
> >
> > Could you send the full output of ./perl t/op/int.t
> > as it should produce comments showing the values that caused the failures.
>
>
> $ /opt/bleedperl/bin/perl-ld op/int.t
> 1..14
> ok 1
> ok 2
> ok 3
> ok 4
> ok 5
> ok 6
> ok 7
> not ok 8 # int(4294967303.15) is 4294967302, not 4294967303
> not ok 9 # int(4294967303.15) is -4294967302, not -4294967303
> ok 10
> ok 11
> ok 12
> ok 13
> ok 14
Thanks. Now I'm more confused. I think it is failing in this bit of code in
op_int in pp.c
#if defined(HAS_MODFL) || defined(LONG_DOUBLE_EQUALS_DOUBLE)
(void)Perl_modf(value, &value);
#else
double tmp = (double)value;
(void)Perl_modf(tmp, &tmp);
value = (NV)tmp;
#endif
SETn(value);
Unfortunately I deleted the vast majority of your OK/NOK messages.
Were you only seeing the failures for op/int.t when configuring without
64 bit IVs, and with long doubles?
Do you have earlier versions of perl (either bleadperl pre patch 8000 or so,
or anything earlier - ie before the IVUV changes) built with this
configuration and the same compiler, that you could easily run the new
op/int.t on? If so, could you do so and send the results.
Am I justified in suspecting a compiler issue here?
Nicholas Clark
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next