Thread: Re: regression failure on latest CVS

Re: regression failure on latest CVS

From
Larry Rosenman
Date:
On Jul 26 2005, ohp@pyrenet.fr wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> > FWIW, I just checked that CVS tip works OK for me without these options,
> > with either integer or float timestamps.  I don't see any new warnings,
> > either.
> > It could well be that the recent changes have introduced some
> > portability problem in the interval code, but someone's going to have to
> > actually dig for it :-(
> >
> That's my feeling but I have no clue where to start.
> I know this was introduced at the end of last week.

I'm confident the SCO Compiler guys will get to the bottom of it :)

They've got all the info they need, as far as I know, as well as
access to my box.

LER


-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 3535 Gaspar Drive, Dallas, TX 75220-3611



Re: regression failure on latest CVS

From
ohp@pyrenet.fr
Date:
In the meantime would'nt it be nice to try to understand what happens and
correct it?

I'm a bit afraid that 8.1 is not used on unixware because people don't
have/want the patch installed.

Regards
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Larry Rosenman wrote:

> Date: 26 Jul 2005 08:52:01 -0500
> From: Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>
> To: ohp@pyrenet.fr
> Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
>      'pgsql-hackers list' <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] regression failure on latest CVS
>
> On Jul 26 2005, ohp@pyrenet.fr wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > FWIW, I just checked that CVS tip works OK for me without these options,
> > > with either integer or float timestamps.  I don't see any new warnings,
> > > either.
> > > It could well be that the recent changes have introduced some
> > > portability problem in the interval code, but someone's going to have to
> > > actually dig for it :-(
> > >
> > That's my feeling but I have no clue where to start.
> > I know this was introduced at the end of last week.
>
> I'm confident the SCO Compiler guys will get to the bottom of it :)
>
> They've got all the info they need, as far as I know, as well as
> access to my box.
>
> LER
>
>
>

-- 
Olivier PRENANT                    Tel: +33-5-61-50-97-00 (Work)
15, Chemin des Monges                +33-5-61-50-97-01 (Fax)
31190 AUTERIVE                       +33-6-07-63-80-64 (GSM)
FRANCE                          Email: ohp@pyrenet.fr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make your life a dream, make your dream a reality. (St Exupery)


Re: regression failure on latest CVS

From
"Larry Rosenman"
Date:
ohp@pyrenet.fr wrote:
> In the meantime would'nt it be nice to try to understand what happens
> and correct it? 
> 
> I'm a bit afraid that 8.1 is not used on unixware because people
> don't have/want the patch installed. 
> 
> Regards
Let's see what they find, first.  They may have a work-around (they don't
yet, but...).


-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 3535 Gaspar Drive, Dallas, TX 75220-3611 US



Re: regression failure on latest CVS

From
Andrew Dunstan
Date:

ohp@pyrenet.fr wrote:

>In the meantime would'nt it be nice to try to understand what happens and
>correct it?
>
>I'm a bit afraid that 8.1 is not used on unixware because people don't
>have/want the patch installed.
>
>  
>

All the evidence is that this is a compiler bug. The apparent workaround 
for now would be to compile with optimisation turned off. Or use another 
compiler - gcc is available isn't it?

cheers

andrew


Re: regression failure on latest CVS

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 
> 
> ohp@pyrenet.fr wrote:
> 
> >In the meantime would'nt it be nice to try to understand what happens and
> >correct it?
> >
> >I'm a bit afraid that 8.1 is not used on unixware because people don't
> >have/want the patch installed.
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> All the evidence is that this is a compiler bug. The apparent workaround 
> for now would be to compile with optimisation turned off. Or use another 
> compiler - gcc is available isn't it?

The SCO compiler was a buggy mess with any optimization turned on 10
years ago, and it still is.  I see no reason our community should waste
time helping fix such a buggy compiler.  If it was buggy for the past 10
years, I think it will be buggy for the next 10 too.  We should just
turn off optimization for that compiler.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073