Op een mooie zomerdag (Monday 01 August 2005 18:51),schreef Dominic Dunlop:
> On 2005–08–01, at 17:45, Steve Peters wrote:
> >> Automated smoke report for 5.9.3 patch 25248
> >> mccoy.peters.homeunix.org: Intel Pentium III ("GenuineIntel" 686-
> >> class, 512KB L2 cache) (548 MHz) (i386/1 cpu)
> >> on openbsd - 3.7
> >> using cc version 3.3.5 (propolice)
>
> ...
>
> > It appears that the additional sprintf.t test is causing failures
> > on OpenBSD.
...
> > not ok 147 >%.0g< >-0.0< >-0< >0< # No minus
...
> 3.7 is the latest openbsd, isn't it? Presumably gcc 3.3.5 is the
> default C compiler for this version. Can you say how the tests look
> if you use gcc 4.0 instead of 3.3.5?
>
> If gcc 4.0 does not fix the problem, and if it is reasonable to
> expect most people to build perl for openbsd 3.7 using gcc 3.3.5, can
> you cook up and test a patch for the relevant line of sprintf.t, such
> that openbsd is added to the skip list? If you feel optimistic about
> a fix appearing in the next release of openbsd, limit the skip to
> v3.7 and earlier; otherwise skip for all versions.
It looks like there's more than windows and openbsd3.7:
http://www.test-smoke.org/cgi/tsdb?fososver=1&farch=1&frtext=1&rtext=failed+147&pversion=5.9.3&plcmp=from&lmode=List+reports
(sorry, it's slow)
>
> As I think this is a divergence from the C standard*, can you report
> it as a bug to the openbsd people? My (cursory) search of their
> problem reports does not turn up anything that looks close to this
> issue. The following test program should output "-0". Well, it does
> for me on Mac OS X, anyway:
>
> #include <math.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> main(){printf("%g\n", -pow(10, -200) * pow(10, -200));}
>
> (Identity cribbed from <http://www.savrola.com/resources/
> negative_zero.html>.)
>
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> * "The results of all floating conversions of a negative zero, and of
> negative values that round to zero, include a minus sign." --
> footnote in section 7.19.6.1, sprintf, of ISO 9899:1999 --
> Programming Language C.
Good luck,
Abe
--
This thread is supposed to be about what it means - not about the
implementation. I am painfully aware of the implementation issues.
-- Nick Ing-Simmons on p5p @ 2003-05-22
