On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:11:18PM -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:40:26AM -0600, Albert Chin wrote:
> > Any ideas on this test failure (works ok on RHEL 4/AMD64):
>
> Hum, hard ... we have our own date/time routines based on the
> XSD ones. Recompiling date.c in libexslt/ with DEBUG_EXSLT_DATE defined
> and testing on both systems may give a hint of what is going wrong.
Ok, patch below. Does ANSI define bit types as signed/unsigned? I
think they're unsigned by default. I'd suggest making all bittypes
signed or unsigned explicitly.
--
albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
-- snip snip
Index: libexslt/date.c
===================================================================
--- libexslt/date.c.orig 2004-11-08 09:35:03.000000000 -0600
+++ libexslt/date.c 2005-11-11 13:16:57.659095000 -0600
@@ -89,7 +85,7 @@
unsigned int min :6; /* 0 <= min <= 59 */
double sec;
unsigned int tz_flag :1; /* is tzo explicitely set? */
- int tzo :11; /* -1440 <= tzo <= 1440 */
+ signed int tzo :11; /* -1440 <= tzo <= 1440 */
};
/* Duration value */
_______________________________________________
xslt mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/XSLT/
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xslt
