On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Andrew Whitworth <[email protected]> wrote: > --verbose-step=auto::neg_0 says: > > "yes" for linux32/icc. > "yes" for OpenSolaris32/gcc3.4.5 > > Recently generated smoke reports for these two platforms are at: > > http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/report_details/31560 > http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/report_details/31566
The test seems to be ignoring the existence of the results of this config var, and instead are checking to see if the OS is mswin32. Key the test off config's has_negative_zero instead, that should avoid the failures. Whether the right answer is to todo/skip the test on those platforms,or to just change the expected output to '0', I am unsure. I think the latter is probably the most appropriate in this case. > So the failing tests are slightly different, but the net result is the > same: several -0 tests are failing for both platforms. The solaris is > failing some weird GC test too, I'm going to dig into that separately. > > > --Andrew Whitworth > > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Will Coleda <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Andrew Whitworth <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> I've been trying to do some testing on some "exotic" platforms >>> recently, and one issue I am running into consistently is the negative >>> zero problem. Several platform/compiler combinations I have tried do >>> not seem to have proper negative zero support, which causes parrot to >>> fail several tests (several similar tests spread across several test >>> files, which I find particularly annoying). >>> >>> So the question I have is this: How do we go about fixing this problem >>> for platforms where the math libraries don't handle negative zero the >>> way we want? Do we add in runtime checks to all our arithmetic ops to >>> ensure that we get negative zero values when we should? Runtime checks >>> could be expensive for math-heavy programs. We could use preprocessor >>> #ifdef sections to only insert these checks on platforms where it's >>> known to be an issue, but we would need support from Configure.pl to >>> detect this and define the macros properly. >> >> What do these platforms report on the config step auto/neg_0.pm ? >> >>> Is there another solution >>> somewhere that I am not thinking about? >>> >>> If we fixed the negative zero issue we could have a few new platforms >>> with 100% test success, which would be a very good thing for us to >>> have by 2.0 or, more likely, shortly thereafter. >>> >>> --Andrew Whitworth >>> _______________________________________________ >>> http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Will "Coke" Coleda >> > -- Will "Coke" Coleda _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
