Am 20.04.2007 um 09:13 schrieb Jens Miltner:
Am 01.04.2007 um 20:05 schrieb Iulian Musat:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
In past releases of SQLite, we have made available a ZIP archive
with preprocessed source files. In the future, we may change this
so that instead of a ZIP archive full of individual files, we
ship a single "sqlite3.c" source file which contains all of the
source file in a single translation unit. By this mode of
delivery, we hope to enable users to see the performance
improvements
we are seeing in our red bars.
I just want to thanks for adding the "sqlite3.c" target to the
makefile!
All tests run without problems compiled with a sqlite3.c produced
from CVS head !
Few notes:
1. I had to change the declaration of these two functions in
test7.c:
void sqlite3_server_start(void);
void sqlite3_server_stop(void);
2. I compiled everything using "-Wall -O3"; fixed few compiler
warnings related to unused or not initialized variables (probably
irrelevant).
3. I didn't used -DSQLITE_MEMDEBUG, so all malloc and vtab_err
tests were skipped.
4. System used: Linux, i686, gcc 3.4.2, glibc 2.3.3,
Pentium4/3.00GHz/1MB L2.
Hmmh - did the same with sqlite 3.3.16 on Mac OS X 10.4 (gcc 4.0.1,
PowerPC G4) and the vtab_err tests apparently were not skipped
(even though I didn't defined -DSQLITE_MEMDEBUG either), since they
were reported to have failed:
Sorry, my bad - I did in fact define -DSQLITE_MEMDEBUG=1 when
building the tests, but still - the tests fail...
vtab_err-2.373...
Error message returned: vtable constructor did not declare schema: e
Expected: [1 1]
Got: [999 0]
vtab_err-2.374...
Error message returned: vtable constructor did not declare schema: e
Expected: [1 1]
Got: [999 0]
vtab_err-2.375...
Error message returned: vtable constructor did not declare schema: e
[snip]
Failures on these tests: vtab_err-2.373 vtab_err-2.374
vtab_err-2.375 vtab_err-2.376 vtab_err-2.377 vtab_err-2.378
vtab_err-2.379 vtab_err-2.380 vtab_err-2.381 vtab_err-2.382
vtab_err-2.383 vtab_err-2.384 vtab_err-2.385 vtab_err-2.386
vtab_err-2.387 vtab_err-2.388 vtab_err-2.389 vtab_err-2.390
vtab_err-2.391 vtab_err-2.392 vtab_err-2.393 vtab_err-2.394
vtab_err-2.395 vtab_err-2.396 vtab_err-2.397 vtab_err-2.398
vtab_err-2.399 vtab_err-2.400 vtab_err-2.401 vtab_err-2.402
vtab_err-2.403 vtab_err-2.404 vtab_err-2.405 vtab_err-2.406
vtab_err-2.407 vtab_err-2.408 vtab_err-2.409 vtab_err-2.410
vtab_err-2.411 vtab_err-2.412 vtab_err-2.413 vtab_err-2.414
vtab_err-2.415 vtab_err-2.416 vtab_err-2.417 vtab_err-2.418
vtab_err-2.419 vtab_err-2.420 vtab_err-2.421 vtab_err-2.422
vtab_err-2.423
Not sure whether I should be concerned - we're not using virtual
tables...
</jum>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
