On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 01:25:54PM -0600, Albert Chin wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:11:18PM -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:40:26AM -0600, Albert Chin wrote: > > > Any ideas on this test failure (works ok on RHEL 4/AMD64): > > > > Hum, hard ... we have our own date/time routines based on the > > XSD ones. Recompiling date.c in libexslt/ with DEBUG_EXSLT_DATE defined > > and testing on both systems may give a hint of what is going wrong. > > Ok, patch below. Does ANSI define bit types as signed/unsigned? I > think they're unsigned by default. I'd suggest making all bittypes > signed or unsigned explicitly. > > -- > albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > -- snip snip > Index: libexslt/date.c > =================================================================== > --- libexslt/date.c.orig 2004-11-08 09:35:03.000000000 -0600 > +++ libexslt/date.c 2005-11-11 13:16:57.659095000 -0600 > @@ -89,7 +85,7 @@ > unsigned int min :6; /* 0 <= min <= 59 */ > double sec; > unsigned int tz_flag :1; /* is tzo explicitely set? */ > - int tzo :11; /* -1440 <= tzo <= 1440 */ > + signed int tzo :11; /* -1440 <= tzo <= 1440 */ > }; > > /* Duration value */
Albert, First sorry for the delay, I know I have a bit of backlog with your mails, but I don't have the time right now to go over them, but I'm not forgetting you, I will try to process them within one or two days. And yes you're right we should flag them as signed to be 100 sure, this should probably be changed in the schemastype module of libxml2, at least a double check should be done. thanks ! Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat http://redhat.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ _______________________________________________ xslt mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/XSLT/ [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xslt
