Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Fixed, see 79f2b5d583e2e2a7; but AFAICS this has no real-world impact
>> so it does not explain whatever is happening on chipmunk.
> Ah, thanks for diagnosing that.
> The chipmunk failure is strange -- notice it only references the
> = operators, except for type box for which it's ~= that fails. The test
> includes a lot of operators ...
Actually not --- if you browse through the last half dozen failures
on chipmunk you will notice that
(1) the set of operators complained of varies a bit from one failure
to the next;
(2) more often than not, this is one of the failures:
WARNING: no results for (boxcol,@>,box,"((1,2),(300,400))")
Certainly the majority of the complaints are about equality operators,
but not quite all of them.
> Also, we have quite a number of ARM boxes: apart from chipmunk we have
> gull, hamster, mereswine, dangomushi, axolotl, grison. (hamster and
> chipmunk report hostname -m as "armv6l", the others armv7l). All of
> them are running Linux, either Fedora or Debian. Most are using gcc,
> compilation flags look pretty standard.
I have no idea what might be different about chipmunk compared to any
other ARM buildfarm critter ... Heikki, any thoughts on that?
regards, tom lane
