RE: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] v6.3 release ToDo list and supported p

gcc-2.8.0 is know to be buggy. But that shouldn't bring you the glibc
bug, should it?

Michael

--
Dr. Michael Meskes, Project-Manager | topsystem Systemhaus GmbH
meskes(at)topsystem(dot)de | Europark A2, Adenauerstr. 20
meskes(at)debian(dot)org | 52146 Wuerselen
Go SF49ers! Go Rhein Fire! | Tel: (+49) 2405/4670-44
Use Debian GNU/Linux! | Fax: (+49) 2405/4670-10

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederick W. Reimer [SMTP:Fred(dot)Reimer(at)ctg(dot)hboc(dot)com]
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 1998 12:00 PM
> To: Meskes, Michael; hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org;
> Fred(dot)Reimer(at)ctg(dot)hboc(dot)com
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] v6.3 release ToDo list and
> supported p
>
> I have a "custom" slackware with at least the following updates:
>
> gcc-2.8.0
> glibc-2.0.6
>
> As per the glibc upgrade notes out there on the web, I've cleared
> (actually moved) the /usr/include header files before installing
> glibc, and have reinstalled some "standard" extra libraries (such as
> ncurses) after that.
>
> I get the 3 hours 59 minutes 60.00 seconds.
>
> I also get a bunch of other problems in other tests. Some are just
> differences in the error message, but others are actual differences
> in the float/double numbers produced. Others don't show an error and
> give a number where one "should" have been produced. This is all
> vauge now, but I will recompile the latest snapshot and give a
> complete update maybe tonight, if not tomorrow.
>
> Could some of the other problems be due to gcc-2.8.0, which I'm not
> sure is being used by anyone else for postgress (yet)? Should we
> include the compiler used in the porting updates (I think so). For
> instance, I like to use gcc on the Sparc/Solaris2.5.1 and HP-UX/10.20
> boxes I have because it makes porting things easier between those
> boxes and my Linux systems. Isn't it possible that postgres compiles
> fine using the vendor-supplied compilers, but would fail on gcc, or
> visa versa?
>
>
> - Fred
>
>
> > I just tried this on Debian with glibc 2.0.6 and it works fine. That
> > is my 6.3 postgresql release outputs 4 hours.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Michael Meskes, Projekt-Manager | topystem Systemhaus GmbH
> > meskes(at)topsystem(dot)de | Europark A2, Adenauerstr.
> > 20 meskes(at)debian(dot)org | 52146 Wuerselen Go
> > SF49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux! | Tel: (+49) 2405/4670-44
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: Thomas G. Lockhart[SMTP:lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu]
> > > Sent: Freitag, 13. Februar 1998 17:57
> > > To: Fred(dot)Reimer(at)ctg(dot)hboc(dot)com; Bruce Momjian
> > > Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
> > > Subject: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] v6.3 release ToDo list and
> > > supported ports
> > >
> > > > Is the ix86/linux "confirmed" port using libc 5 or glibc 2.x
> (aka
> > > > libc6)? As most major distributions are going to release all
> new
> > > > versions with glibc I think it's prudent to test on both
> "platforms"
> > > > independently.
> > >
> > > Yes, that is a good point. There is a known bug in the glibc2 math
> > > library which breaks the date/time routines:
> > >
> > > select '4 hours'::timespan;
> > > ---------
> > > @ 4 hours
> > > (1 row)
> > >
> > > comes out instead as
> > > tgl=> select '4 hours'::timespan;
> > > ----------------------------
> > > @ 3 hours 59 mins 60.00 secs
> > > (1 row)
> > >
> > > Oliver was working on patches. Lost his e-mail message; is Oliver
> > > still
> > > here? I've got a RH5.0 linux system at work now, and the shipped
> > > Postgres
> > > installation has this problem. I'd like to see it fixed...
> > >
> > > Bruce, can you add this to the v6.3 ToDo (assuming you agree to
> take
> > > it
> > > on :)
> > >
> > > - Tom
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >