On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:07:29AM -0800, Brown, Daniel wrote:
> The frequent releases are not a problem as far as I am concerned. I'd
> rather have bugs fixed quickly when they are discovered, than wait
> months for releases containing needed fixes like other libraries. We
> use the loose pre-generated C files (not the amalgamation) and even then
> it only takes me about 10-20 minutes to integrate a new release and
> about another 10-40 minutes to run it through our unit tests.
I agree, but note that I run gmake fulltest. In 3.6.9 gmake fulltest
takes many hours (on and amd64 Solaris system it's been running since
yesterday, and it's still not finished -- it's currently at
savepoint4-2.11.1.7814, and making progress).
Is this indicative of a performance regression in 3.6.9? Or just a
result of a massively increased number of tests? 3.5.4's fulltest had
~60000 individual tests, 3.6.9's has ~380000, a more than six-fold
increment!
Incidentally, on Solaris I get the following failures in 3.6.9 gmake
fulltest:
altermalloc-1.transient.40...
Expected: [1 1]
Got: [0 {}]
attachmalloc-1.transient.40...
Expected: [1 1]
Got: [0 {}]
malloc6-1.transient.40...
Expected: [1 1]
Got: [0 {}]
mallocG-1.transient.40...
Expected: [1 1]
Got: [0 {}]
savepoint3-2.transient.4819...
Expected: [1 1]
Got: [1 {unable to open database file}]
savepoint6-smallcache.294.2...
Error: no such table: t1
savepoint6-smallcache.295.1...
Error: no such table: t1
...
The savepoint errors went away when I re-ran just those tests, so I
think those were a transient issue with my test system.
I can't figure out how to run just the malloc tests (putting them in the
INCLUDE list in veryquick.test doesn't do it). Should I be concerned?
I'm also seeing ticket #3205, but that's a problem with Tcl and not a
show stopper for me.
Nico
--
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
