develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from January 2001

Re: [ID 20010118.017] Not OK: perl v5.7.0 +DEVEL8465 on i686-linux-ld 2.2.13

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
abigail
Date:
January 18, 2001 15:57
Subject:
Re: [ID 20010118.017] Not OK: perl v5.7.0 +DEVEL8465 on i686-linux-ld 2.2.13
Message ID:
20010118235813.9615.qmail@foad.org
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 11:13:42PM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> 
> 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?

Indeed. -Duselongdouble gives these failures, unless either -Duse64bitall
or -Duse64bitints is present.

> 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.

I don't have them around, but I build quite a number of bleedperls
in August/September, and as far as I can remember, I didn't get any
op/int.t errors. And this was with the same compiler and configuration
options as back then.

> Am I justified in suspecting a compiler issue here?

I'm not qualified to answer that question.


Abigail

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About