From: | Giles Lean <giles(at)nemeton(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Call for platforms (HP-UX) |
Date: | 2001-04-07 05:24:05 |
Message-ID: | 18576.986621045@nemeton.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Okay, here are my results:
>
> Box 1: C180 (2.0 PA8000), HPUX 10.20
>
> Compile with gcc: all tests pass
> Compile with cc: two lines of diffs in geometry (attached)
>
> Box 2: 715/75 (1.1 PA7100LC), HPUX 10.20
>
> Compile with gcc: all tests pass
> Compile with cc: all tests pass
I haven't had time to look at this further yet, except to build 7.1RC3
a couple of times with the HP ANSI C compiler today:
PA-RISC 1.1 code (-Ae +O2 +DAportable): all tests pass
PA-RISC 2.0 code (-Ae +O2 +DA2.0 +DS2.0): geometry failures
I'm not sure how interesting these differences are anymore -- is there
anyone familiar enough with floating point to determine if the results
are acceptable (although currently unexpected :-) or not?
Regards,
Giles
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-04-07 05:32:15 | Re: Call for platforms (HP-UX) |
Previous Message | Giles Lean | 2001-04-07 04:43:39 | Re: Call for platforms |