[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu added the comment: This appears to be fixed. Skip: keywords now has a '-no selection-' option to get rid of keywords -- keywords: -64bit nosy: +terry.reedy resolution: - fixed status: open - closed ___ Python

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment: Are there any open problems left here or can this bug be closed? -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue4506 ___

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Changes by Skip Montanaro s...@pobox.com: -- nosy: -skip.montanaro ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue4506 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment: NB: I fixed the test_posix failure on trunk/2.6/py3k/3.1 in r73908, r73914, r73913, and r73915. -- nosy: +r.david.murray ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com added the comment: autoconf checks for isinf and isnan fixed in r68299. I also added a check for isfinite, which should really be used in preference to finite: isfinite is standard in C99, while finite doesn't seem to be part of any standard.

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Mark Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Thanks, Skip. It looks like the top priority is fixing Py_IS_INFINITY, then (still assuming that I'm not barking up entirely the wrong tree). I've opened issue 4575 for the Py_IS_INFINITY fix. I'll look at the changes to AC_CHECK_FUNCS,

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Mark Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: The segfault is a little worrying; I don't understand that at all. Skip, can you come up with a configure patch that would allow isinf to be detected on Solaris? I'll also patch Py_IS_INFINITY to make sure that it forces its argument into

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Skip Montanaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: can you come up with a configure patch that would allow isinf to be detected on Solaris? The plot thickens. I know squat about autoconf sorts of things so I asked on the autoconf mailing list. Eric Drake responded (in part): The Python

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Mark Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: I'm failry sure I can find a SPARC here to run it on as well. They are rather few and far between though. I don't think that's necessary. Thanks for disabusing me of my 'Solaris implies SPARC' mindset, though! There are two more pieces of

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Skip Montanaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Mark 1. What happens if you build with the '-ffloat-store' option to Markgcc? Doesn't quite work: % ./python Python 3.0 (r30:67503, Dec 5 2008, 09:48:42) [GCC 4.2.2] on sunos5 Type help, copyright, credits or license

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Skip Montanaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Mark If you have time, could you try the attached patch and report what Mark gets printed when cmath.exp(710+1.5j) is called? On my machine, I Mark get: ... Looks similar here: % ./python Python 3.0 (r30:67503, Dec 3

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Skip Montanaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Mark, I trimmed down cmathmodule.c to just contain c_exp then generated assembler files for the non-printf and printf cases. Perhaps that will help you see what's going on. Skip Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file12219/cmathmodule.S

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Changes by Skip Montanaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file12220/cmathmodule.S.printf ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue4506 ___

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Mark Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Thanks for the assembly code---you're running Solaris on x86! Why didn't you say so before? :) I think I have an idea what's going on: it's the old extended-precision versus double-precision problem. The calculation of c_exp is done in

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Skip Montanaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Mark Thanks for the assembly code---you're running Solaris on x86! Why Mark didn't you say so before? :) I'm failry sure I can find a SPARC here to run it on as well. They are rather few and far between though. Skip

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

New submission from Skip Montanaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I downloaded the 3.0 tarfile and did a straightforward configure make make test on Solaris 10 and got several test failures: 290 tests OK. 4 tests failed: test_cmath test_math test_posix test_subprocess Here's

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Mark Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: I think you brought up the math and cmath errors before, and I never managed to get to the bottom of the problem. I'll have another go. I don't think the (c)math test failures should be regarded as terribly serious, though; the tests are

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Mark Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: (1.5802653829857376e+307+inf*j) Those values look right; except that there's some code near the end of the cexp function that's supposed to set errno to ERANGE if either the real or imaginary component of the result is infinity (and then

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Changes by Mark Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue4506 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Changes by Mark Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- keywords: +64bit -patch ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue4506 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Changes by Mark Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue4506 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Changes by Mark Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue4506 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue4506] 3.0 make test failures on Solaris 10

Mark Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Tracker issue: I don't seem to be able to remove the 'patch' keyword without (accidentally) ending up with something else---in this case the 64bit keyword. Is this just me being incompetent, or should I file a tracker bug?