At 02:26 8/22/2002 +0200, Marcus Börger wrote:
>At 01:51 22.08.2002, Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
>>
>>Then this one is definetely not C99 compliant. Changed the test to:
>>#include
>>
>>int main()
>>{
>> char buf[5];
>> int written;
>>
>> written = snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%
At 01:51 22.08.2002, Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
>At 01:25 22-8-2002, Marcus Börger wrote:
>
>>At 00:56 22.08.2002, you wrote:
>>>
>>>Is this what you are looking for?
>>>
>>>#include
>>>
>>>int main()
>>>{
>>> double f;
>>> char *result;
>>> size_t buf_len=1024;
>>>
>>>
At 01:25 22-8-2002, Marcus Börger wrote:
>At 00:56 22.08.2002, you wrote:
>>
>>Is this what you are looking for?
>>
>>#include
>>
>>int main()
>>{
>> double f;
>> char *result;
>> size_t buf_len=1024;
>>
>> result = (char *) malloc(buf_len+1);
>> f = -.333
At 00:56 22.08.2002, you wrote:
>Hi Marcus,
>
>At 23:54 21-8-2002, Marcus Börger wrote:
>
>>At 17:58 21.08.2002, Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
>>>At 03:36 21-8-2002, Marcus Börger wrote:
>>>
I made the functions a bit more C99 complient (maybe we should use
some C99 complience suit...) but unfortu
At 17:58 21.08.2002, Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
>At 03:36 21-8-2002, Marcus Börger wrote:
>
>>I made the functions a bit more C99 complient (maybe we should use
>>some C99 complience suit...) but unfortuanetley that was not all.
>>1) someone must have changed ini setting precision from 14 to 12
>>Addin
At 03:36 21-8-2002, Marcus Börger wrote:
>I made the functions a bit more C99 complient (maybe we should use
>some C99 complience suit...) but unfortuanetley that was not all.
>1) someone must have changed ini setting precision from 14 to 12
>Adding special INI section to array tests fixed test 1
I changed it actually, but you are right, that was the reason.
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Marcus Börger wrote:
> > 1) someone must have changed ini setting precision from 14 to 12
> > Adding special INI section to array tests fixed test 1 & 2.
>
> IIRC, Zeev changed this to avoid
Marcus Börger wrote:
> 1) someone must have changed ini setting precision from 14 to 12
> Adding special INI section to array tests fixed test 1 & 2.
IIRC, Zeev changed this to avoid useless bug reports.
There are too many people don't know how floating point
numbers are handled by computer...
-
I made the functions a bit more C99 complient (maybe we should use
some C99 complience suit...) but unfortuanetley that was not all.
1) someone must have changed ini setting precision from 14 to 12
Adding special INI section to array tests fixed test 1 & 2.
2) test 003 Test usort, uksort and uasor
At 22:51 20.08.2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hey,
>
>I think this is fairly ciritical... and suspect it has something to do
>with marcus' new sprintf function. Marcus, can you have a look at it?
>
>Derick
Unfortuanetly spprintf is based on snprintf we took from apache.
It seems that 'f' and 'g'
Hey,
I think this is fairly ciritical... and suspect it has something to do
with marcus' new sprintf function. Marcus, can you have a look at it?
Derick
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Wez Furlong wrote:
> Not as far as I know; I just spotted the failing array tests and
> thought that it might be someth
Not as far as I know; I just spotted the failing array tests and
thought that it might be something simple (like cgi headers, or mangled
include) screwing with the tests.
--Wez.
On 08/20/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is there a bug report for this?
>
> Derick
>
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002,
Hi,
is there a bug report for this?
Derick
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Wez Furlong wrote:
> I noticed that "make test" runs (or skips) some tests in
> ext/skeleton. It should probably skip that dir.
>
> Also, the array tests are failing because they expect output
> like -0.33 but are gettin
I noticed that "make test" runs (or skips) some tests in
ext/skeleton. It should probably skip that dir.
Also, the array tests are failing because they expect output
like -0.33 but are getting -.33. (no leading
0 before the decimal point).
Could someone who knows what they are d
14 matches
Mail list logo
