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@topsystem.de                    | Europark A2, Adenauerstr. 20
meskes@debian.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.Reimer@ctg.hboc.com]
> Sent:	Monday, February 16, 1998 12:00 PM
> To:	Meskes, Michael; hackers@postgreSQL.org;
> Fred.Reimer@ctg.hboc.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@topsystem.de                    | Europark A2, Adenauerstr.
> > 20 meskes@debian.org                      | 52146 Wuerselen Go
> > SF49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux!      | Tel: (+49) 2405/4670-44
> > 
> > > ----------
> > > From: 	Thomas G. Lockhart[SMTP:lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu]
> > > Sent: 	Freitag, 13. Februar 1998 17:57
> > > To: 	Fred.Reimer@ctg.hboc.com; Bruce Momjian
> > > Cc: 	hackers@postgreSQL.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
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 

Mon, 16 Feb 1998 17:00:13 +0100
"Meskes, Michael" <meskes@topsystem.de>
RE: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] v6.3 release ToDo list and supported p