At 4:31 PM -0500 11/1/02, Tom Lane wrote: >Peter Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> At 1:30 AM -0500 11/1/02, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Is it worth carrying two expected files for OS X 10.1 and 10.2? I'm >>> inclined to think not, and am leaning towards updating the expected >>> file. Comments? > >> I'm 90% certain that the difference is caused by GCC 2.95 vs 3.1. > >Probably.
I had to do a bunch of updates to my 10.1.x system, but I can now verify that 10.1.5 builds and runs 7.3b3 regression test with no failures. >> If you can easily pick the right file based which GCC compiled it, that'd be ideal. > >No, we can't easily do that. We could conditionalize it on the OS >version, but I don't think it's worth the trouble. I've committed a >change to the expected file so that OSX 10.2 will pass cleanly, and >older versions will have the one-digit difference instead. That's fine. If someone gets ambitious, the uname -a from the two differing versions are: 10.1.5 Darwin bierpe3 5.5 Darwin Kernel Version 5.5: Thu May 30 14:51:26 PDT 2002; root:xnu/xnu-201.42.3.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc 10.2.1 Darwin cmos.apple.com 6.1 Darwin Kernel Version 6.1: Fri Sep 6 23:24:34 PDT 2002; root:xnu/xnu-344.2.obj~2/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc >This whole issue should go away in PG 7.4, unless someone objects to the >current plan for making float output precision adjustable. We'll back >off the number of displayed digits in the geometry test by one or two >places, and hopefully need only one or a very few geometry comparison >files. Excellent. -pmb ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
