On Mon, 7 May 2007 23:55:07 +0100, Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 06:13:51PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > t/zvp_01basics............
> > # Failed test '... should be -1263462440'
> > # at ./t/01basics.t line 234.
> > # got: -1255073832
> > # expected: -1263462440
> >
> > # Failed test '... should be -1263462437'
> > # at ./t/01basics.t line 235.
> > # got: -1255073829
> > # expected: -1263462437
>
> Interesting...
If this has to to with Math::BigInt, try the release from today.
Tels found some 32bit failures 1.85 is broken. 1.86 is OK again.
> SKIP: {
> skip("Math::BigInt < 1.56",2)
> if $DBI::PurePerl && !eval { require Math::BigInt; require_version
> Math::BigInt 1.56 };
> cmp_ok(DBI::hash("foo1",1), '==', -1263462440, '... should be
> -1263462440');
> cmp_ok(DBI::hash("foo2",1), '==', -1263462437, '... should be
> -1263462437');
> }
>
> Looks to me like the gofer subprocess picked up a different
> Math::BigInt than the one in the parent process.
>
> And that's probably because it used a different perl executable.
>
> Could you do some checking along those lines?
>
> Thanks!
>
> I should probably just skip those tests if $^X doesn't match the path
> of the 'perl' executable we find from the PATH.
--
H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/)
using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.9.x on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00, 11.11,
& 11.23, SuSE 10.0 & 10.2, AIX 4.3 & 5.2, and Cygwin. http://qa.perl.org
http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/ http://www.test-smoke.org
http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
