At 4:31 PM -0500 11/1/02, Tom Lane wrote:
>Peter Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> At 1:30 AM -0500 11/1/02, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Is it worth carrying two expected files for OS X 10.1 and 10.2? I'm
>>> inclined to think not, and am leaning towards updating the expected
>>> file. Comments?
>
>
Peter Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 1:30 AM -0500 11/1/02, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is it worth carrying two expected files for OS X 10.1 and 10.2? I'm
>> inclined to think not, and am leaning towards updating the expected
>> file. Comments?
> I'm 90% certain that the difference is caused b
At 1:30 AM -0500 11/1/02, Tom Lane wrote:
>I said:
>> Peter Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Perhaps the change from gcc2.x to 3.x changed floats a bit?
>
>> Could be. We had previous reports of the same diff on OSX 10.2 with
>> a G4 processor, so I was wondering if it was hardware or softw
I said:
> Peter Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Perhaps the change from gcc2.x to 3.x changed floats a bit?
> Could be. We had previous reports of the same diff on OSX 10.2 with
> a G4 processor, so I was wondering if it was hardware or software
> differences (geometry-powerpc-darwin.out m
Peter Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok. After upgrading to bison-1.75, all regression tests pass except:
> *** ./expected/geometry-powerpc-darwin.out Mon Dec 11 08:45:16 2000
> Perhaps the change from gcc2.x to 3.x changed floats a bit?
Could be. We had previous reports of the same
Peter Bierman wrote:
> >> *** ./expected/geometry-powerpc-darwin.out Mon Dec 11 08:45:16 2000
> >> --- ./results/geometry.out Tue Oct 29 15:40:56 2002
> >> ***
> >> *** 127,133
> >> ! | (-10,0)| [(-100,200),(30,-40)] |
>(-9.99715942258202,15.386461014
>> *** ./expected/geometry-powerpc-darwin.out Mon Dec 11 08:45:16 2000
>> --- ./results/geometry.out Tue Oct 29 15:40:56 2002
>> ***
>> *** 127,133
>> ! | (-10,0)| [(-100,200),(30,-40)] |
>(-9.99715942258202,15.3864610140472)
>> --- 127,133
>> !
Yes, OSX 10.2.X seems to have this output on _some_ machines, but not
others, and we can't seem to figure out why. Can you tell us more about
your machine and cpu?
---
Peter Bierman wrote:
> At 6:11 PM -0500 10/29/02, Neil
At 6:11 PM -0500 10/29/02, Neil Conway wrote:
>Peter Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So first off, what's the best way to tell from a cvs snapshot which
>> "release" (if any) that snapshot is?
>
>configure.in, perhaps?
Ah, thanks. 7.3b3 it is then.
>> 'make runcheck' in src/test/regress/
