Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2013
Re: Blead on s390x
From: H.Merijn Brand
April 7, 2013 10:24
Re: Blead on s390x
Message ID: email@example.com
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:05:16 +0200, Henri Kuiper
> Lol, just my 2cc bit might it be related to the same S**T I have with
> MongoDB? bigEndian vs SmallEndian?
I don't think so, as I smoke on PA-RISC (32bit and 64bit) daily, and
that should surface Endianess problems
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:12:41 +0100, Nicholas Clark <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:21:56AM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > I got a hercules iso from Henri yesterday on the OpenSUSE 12.3 launch
> > party. After converting the iso to something Linux understands (OS/X
> > iso's are not recognized as iso), it just took minutes to get it up
> > and running under hercules. It is not EBCDIC, but for sure it is
> > something different.
> Is anyone actually using Perl on it?
As I understood, there is an increase of Linux use on mainframes, Henri
should be able to show more precise numbers.
> In that, we've not had any bug reports about this before, and for a lot of
> these somewhat esoteric platforms I'm sort of wondering at what point do
> they stop being "fun", and start being "work". Right now, I think it's more
> at the "fun" level, and it might be telling us something interesting about
> portability, as it might be that all these tests failing are down to the
> same problem.
At the moment, for me it is indeed withing the "fun" range, but with a
definite hint towards portability tests and sanity checks for
Configure. It already showed the use of good documentation of known
issues. I *remembered* the ODBM bug and swiftly found the solution in
our own docs.
When it starts being "work", I am unsure if the time it takes warrents
FWIW I was amazed that it built till the end with so few fails
> Of all of these:
> > op/pow.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 267 Failed: 1)
> > Failed test: 13
> > op/range.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 141 Failed: 25)
> > Failed tests: 84-95, 99-111
> > op/pack.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 14704 Failed: 1)
> > Failed test: 3499
> pow.t looks to be the most interesting. What does *it* say. The test is:
> # This calculation ought to be within 0.001 of the right answer.
> my $bits_in_uv = int (0.001 + log (~0+1) / log 2);
With the installed perl5.10
$ test@zdolinux:~> perl -wle'print int (0.001 + log (~0+1) / log 2)'
> # Ought to be 32, 64, 36 or something like that.
> my $remainder = $bits_in_uv & 3;
> cmp_ok ($remainder, '==', 0, 'Sanity check bits in UV calculation')
> or printf "# ~0 is %d (0x%d) which gives $bits_in_uv bits\n", ~0, ~0;
> > test@zdolinux:/perl/perl-git/t> ./perl harness op/numconvert.t
> > op/numconvert.t .. # '9.22337e+18' ne '1.84467e+19', 18446744073709551615 => P N N vs P N
> > # Failed test 15 - at op/numconvert.t line 247
> > # '1.84467e+19' ne '9.22337e+18', -1 => U P N vs U N
> > # '1.84467e+19' ne '9.22337e+18', 18446744073709551615 => U P N vs U N
> That's a factor of two out. Curious.
> What's the output from
> perl -le 'printf "%X %X\n", ~0, -1'
test@zdolinux:~> perl -le 'printf "%X %X\n", ~0, -1'
> Nicholas Clark
H.Merijn Brand http://tux.nl Perl Monger http://amsterdam.pm.org/
using perl5.00307 .. 5.17 porting perl5 on HP-UX, AIX, and openSUSE