At 4:31 PM -0500 11/1/02, Tom Lane wrote:
>Peter Bierman <bierman@apple.com> writes:
>> At 1:30 AM -0500 11/1/02, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Is it worth carrying two expected files for OS X 10.1 and 10.2? I'm
>>> inclined to think not, and am leaning towards updating the expected
>>> file. Comments?
>
>> I'm 90% certain that the difference is caused by GCC 2.95 vs 3.1.
>
>Probably.
I had to do a bunch of updates to my 10.1.x system, but I can now verify that 10.1.5 builds and runs 7.3b3 regression
testwith no failures.
>> If you can easily pick the right file based which GCC compiled it, that'd be ideal.
>
>No, we can't easily do that. We could conditionalize it on the OS
>version, but I don't think it's worth the trouble. I've committed a
>change to the expected file so that OSX 10.2 will pass cleanly, and
>older versions will have the one-digit difference instead.
That's fine. If someone gets ambitious, the uname -a from the two differing versions are:
10.1.5
Darwin bierpe3 5.5 Darwin Kernel Version 5.5: Thu May 30 14:51:26 PDT 2002; root:xnu/xnu-201.42.3.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC
PowerMacintosh powerpc
10.2.1
Darwin cmos.apple.com 6.1 Darwin Kernel Version 6.1: Fri Sep 6 23:24:34 PDT 2002; root:xnu/xnu-344.2.obj~2/RELEASE_PPC
Power Macintosh powerpc
>This whole issue should go away in PG 7.4, unless someone objects to the
>current plan for making float output precision adjustable. We'll back
>off the number of displayed digits in the geometry test by one or two
>places, and hopefully need only one or a very few geometry comparison
>files.
Excellent.
-pmb
