Re: [HACKERS] 7.3b3 passes on MacOSX 10.2.1
At 1:30 AM -0500 11/1/02, Tom Lane wrote: I said: Peter Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the change from gcc2.x to 3.x changed floats a bit? Could be. We had previous reports of the same diff on OSX 10.2 with a G4 processor, so I was wondering if it was hardware or software differences (geometry-powerpc-darwin.out matches exactly on my G3 laptop running OSX 10.1). I have a 10.2 CD and am planning to update sometime soon to verify this by experiment. I have done the update and now I get the ...40473 output on the same hardware that useta pass. So it's clearly a software-version issue. 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. (10.0 10.1 vs 10.2) If you can easily pick the right file based which GCC compiled it, that'd be ideal. -pmb ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] 7.3b3 passes on MacOSX 10.2.1
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. 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. 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. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] 7.3b3 passes on MacOSX 10.2.1
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
Re: [HACKERS] 7.3b3 passes on MacOSX 10.2.1
I said: Peter Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the change from gcc2.x to 3.x changed floats a bit? Could be. We had previous reports of the same diff on OSX 10.2 with a G4 processor, so I was wondering if it was hardware or software differences (geometry-powerpc-darwin.out matches exactly on my G3 laptop running OSX 10.1). I have a 10.2 CD and am planning to update sometime soon to verify this by experiment. I have done the update and now I get the ...40473 output on the same hardware that useta pass. So it's clearly a software-version issue. 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? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [HACKERS] 7.3b3 passes on MacOSX 10.2.1
Peter Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok. After upgrading to bison-1.75, all regression tests pass except: *** ./expected/geometry-powerpc-darwin.out Mon Dec 11 08:45:16 2000 Perhaps the change from gcc2.x to 3.x changed floats a bit? Could be. We had previous reports of the same diff on OSX 10.2 with a G4 processor, so I was wondering if it was hardware or software differences (geometry-powerpc-darwin.out matches exactly on my G3 laptop running OSX 10.1). I have a 10.2 CD and am planning to update sometime soon to verify this by experiment. Or, if you can confirm that you had passes before on the same hardware you're using, we could conclude that it's the OS update that counts. In any case, what's the output from config.guess on your machine? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
[HACKERS] 7.3b3 passes on MacOSX 10.2.1
At 6:11 PM -0500 10/29/02, Neil Conway wrote: Peter Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So first off, what's the best way to tell from a cvs snapshot which release (if any) that snapshot is? configure.in, perhaps? Ah, thanks. 7.3b3 it is then. 'make runcheck' in src/test/regress/ fails with: bison -y -d preproc.y preproc.y:5560: fatal error: maximum table size (32767) exceeded You need bison 1.50 or greater to build the new ecpg (due to a bison limitation). Ok. After upgrading to bison-1.75, all regression tests pass except: *** ./expected/geometry-powerpc-darwin.out Mon Dec 11 08:45:16 2000 --- ./results/geometry.out Tue Oct 29 15:40:56 2002 *** *** 127,133 ! | (-10,0)| [(-100,200),(30,-40)] | (-9.99715942258202,15.3864610140472) --- 127,133 ! | (-10,0)| [(-100,200),(30,-40)] | (-9.99715942258202,15.3864610140473) == Perhaps the change from gcc2.x to 3.x changed floats a bit? -pmb ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] 7.3b3 passes on MacOSX 10.2.1
Yes, OSX 10.2.X seems to have this output on _some_ machines, but not others, and we can't seem to figure out why. Can you tell us more about your machine and cpu? --- Peter Bierman wrote: At 6:11 PM -0500 10/29/02, Neil Conway wrote: Peter Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So first off, what's the best way to tell from a cvs snapshot which release (if any) that snapshot is? configure.in, perhaps? Ah, thanks. 7.3b3 it is then. 'make runcheck' in src/test/regress/ fails with: bison -y -d preproc.y preproc.y:5560: fatal error: maximum table size (32767) exceeded You need bison 1.50 or greater to build the new ecpg (due to a bison limitation). Ok. After upgrading to bison-1.75, all regression tests pass except: *** ./expected/geometry-powerpc-darwin.out Mon Dec 11 08:45:16 2000 --- ./results/geometry.out Tue Oct 29 15:40:56 2002 *** *** 127,133 ! | (-10,0)| [(-100,200),(30,-40)] | (-9.99715942258202,15.3864610140472) --- 127,133 ! | (-10,0)| [(-100,200),(30,-40)] | (-9.99715942258202,15.3864610140473) == Perhaps the change from gcc2.x to 3.x changed floats a bit? -pmb ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] 7.3b3 passes on MacOSX 10.2.1
*** ./expected/geometry-powerpc-darwin.out Mon Dec 11 08:45:16 2000 --- ./results/geometry.out Tue Oct 29 15:40:56 2002 *** *** 127,133 ! | (-10,0)| [(-100,200),(30,-40)] | (-9.99715942258202,15.3864610140472) --- 127,133 ! | (-10,0)| [(-100,200),(30,-40)] | (-9.99715942258202,15.3864610140473) == At 9:19 PM -0500 10/29/02, Bruce Momjian wrote: Yes, OSX 10.2.X seems to have this output on _some_ machines, but not others, and we can't seem to figure out why. Can you tell us more about your machine and cpu? It's a dual 450MHz G4 with 512MB RAM, running 10.2.1. Is there any particular type of Mac you'd like me to try it on? -pmb ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
