lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> Zitat von Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org>:
>
> > Victor Duchovni:
> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:56:57PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >>
> >> > Well this is the code:
> >> >
> >> > psc_lowat_check_queue_length = .7 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
> >> > psc_hiwat_check_queue_length = .9 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
> >>
> >> Is the compiler first converting 0.7 to an integer and *then* doing
> >> the multiplication?
> >>
> >> That would violate the C arithmetic type promotion rules.
> >
> > Let's find out if var_psc_pre_queue_limit is non-zero.
> >
> > Andreas, I am very interested in your logging for var_psc_pre_queue_limit.
>
> Now its getting real strange:
>
> Jan 17 22:25:46 hpux2 postfix/postscreen[9558]: var_psc_pre_queue_limit = 100
> Jan 17 22:25:46 hpux2 postfix/postscreen[9558]: psc_lowat = 0
> Jan 17 22:25:46 hpux2 postfix/postscreen[9558]: psc_hiwat = 0
> Jan 17 22:25:46 hpux2 postfix/postscreen[9558]:
> postscreen_command_time_limit: stress=10 normal=300 lowat=0 hiwat=0
>
> I have added msg_info to print out psc_lowat and psc_hiwat after the
> calculation...
> I really wonder what else this HP compiler does if no one notices.
> Should i maybe try without the ANSI flag "-Ae"?
Looks like
0.7 * 100 = 0
0.9 * 100 = 0
If you have time, can you try:
stuff = 0.7 * ((double) var_psc_pre_queue_limit);
stuff = 0.9 * ((double) var_psc_pre_queue_limit);
Thanks,
Wietse
