+1 for releasing. As long as it can compile and still works we can sort out the details in next release.
> -----Original Message----- > From: geos-devel [mailto:geos-devel-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of > Paul Ramsey > Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 4:11 PM > To: GEOS Development List <geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org> > Subject: Re: [geos-devel] 3.9.0beta2 > > > > On Dec 3, 2020, at 10:18 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebas...@xs4all.nl> > wrote: > > > > On 12/3/20 12:17 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote: > >> without any further ado, here's a beta2 release for your testing pleasure > > > > testrunner fails on arm64, ppc64el, powerpc, ppc64, riscv64: > > Have we ever passed? Perhaps I made a big mistake removing ttmath. > > Anyways, here's what I've learned today, testing on an AWS ARM64 server. > > * Still no obvious reason why these platforms shouldn't just work, if they > implement IEEE conforming operations on double. > * There's something called FLT_EVAL_METHOD in <cfloat> which might > indicate non-IEEE handling of double, but... my test server insists it is > FLT_EVAL_METHOD == 0 "evaluate just to the range and precision of the > type". > > Wondering if there was a brutal hack-around, and noting that "long double" > is increasingly a "thing", I took our DD class, and hacked out all the smarts and > substituted long double implementations. > > https://github.com/pramsey/geos/tree/dd-arm > > Interestingly, this implementation passes all the geos::math::DD tests! The > ARM64 long double appears to have a full 128bit implementation. Running > the same thing on Intel x64 fails a number of tests. This is probably because > the long double implementation on x64 has only 80 bits (according to the > internet). > > Does all this test passing mean that a direct use of long double will work on > platforms that support it? Apparently not. The ARM build still fails on quite a > few tests of varying sorts, just not on the DD tests. > > 90 - unit-capi-GEOSVoronoiDiagram (Failed) > 140 - unit-linearref-LengthIndexedLine (Failed) > 208 - general-TestCentroid (Failed) > 260 - issue-issue-geos-275 (Failed) > 267 - issue-issue-geos-398 (Failed) > 349 - robust-TestOverlay-pg-list (Failed) > > Where does this leave us? With a long research project on ARM64 to track > down why these tests fail and/or why the DD implementation fails. > > Should we still release? I think so. While ARM and other niche platforms are > coming down the pike, it doesn't make sense to delay. GEOS isn't "broken" > on those platforms so much as "not perfect". > > P. > > > _______________________________________________ > geos-devel mailing list > geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel _______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
