Re: Call for platforms (HP-UX)
От | Giles Lean |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Call for platforms (HP-UX) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 18576.986621045@nemeton.com.au обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Call for platforms (HP-UX) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Call for platforms (HP-UX)
|
Список | 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: