> When testing, it is my usual practice to compile with
> -DSQLITE_NO_SYNC=1 which turns off disk syncing. This
> very definitely makes the tests run way faster. I
> wonder if the Makefiles you are using are not setting
> this option by default on windows but are on linux?
On windows this opti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When testing, it is my usual practice to compile with
-DSQLITE_NO_SYNC=1 which turns off disk syncing. This
very definitely makes the tests run way faster. I
wonder if the Makefiles you are using are not setting
this option by default on windows but are on linux?
Dennis Cote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do you, or anyone else, know why the linux version would not be
> committing its changes to disk?
>
When testing, it is my usual practice to compile with
-DSQLITE_NO_SYNC=1 which turns off disk syncing. This
very definitely makes the tests run way fas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that was fixed by check-in [3868].
Richard,
It seems you were right again. :-)
I'm not sure what caused my build to have a problem, but after building
and running the test suite on Linux with no problems, I rebooted into
Windows.
I did a make clean and m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis Cote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Have you tried to run the latest laststmtchanges.test on Windows? I am
still getting a failure that shows the same double counting that was
originally reported on the mailing list.
laststmtchanges-1.2.1...
Expected: [5
Dennis Cote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Have you tried to run the latest laststmtchanges.test on Windows? I am
> still getting a failure that shows the same double counting that was
> originally reported on the mailing list.
>
> laststmtchanges-1.2.1...
> Expected: [5]
> Got
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps not. But is was the cause of problems I was having
with misc7 yesterday when I checked in my patches for winXP.
Richard,
You were correct. I'm not sure how it happened but I must have had a log
from the previous version of the test and the source for the ne
Dennis Cote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> > Your previous changes left the ABC table in a different
> > state than what these latter tests expect to see.
> >
> >
> Richard,
>
> I don't think that is the case
Perhaps not. But is was the cause of problems I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your previous changes left the ABC table in a different
state than what these latter tests expect to see.
Richard,
I don't think that is the case. I'm using the misc7.test file from CVS
head. A recent change to that file that appears prior to these failures
is t
Dennis Cote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still troubleshooting the test suite on Windows.
>
> I'm getting two failures on tests misc7-10 and misc7-11. These test look
> like they should work on Windows without change. Can anybody suggest
> what might be wrong?
>
Your previous changes left
I'm still troubleshooting the test suite on Windows.
I'm getting two failures on tests misc7-10 and misc7-11. These test look
like they should work on Windows without change. Can anybody suggest
what might be wrong?
The test code in this section is:
ifcapable vtab {
# Run some debug
11 matches
Mail list logo
