I get this since Tom's commit.

Chris
Sun, 23 May 2004 11:38:51 +0800
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
New horology failure
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> I get this since Tom's commit.

On what platform?  How is type time_t defined on your platform?

			regards, tom lane

Sun, 23 May 2004 11:53:13 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: New horology failure 
>>I get this since Tom's commit.
> 
> 
> On what platform?  How is type time_t defined on your platform?

Hmmm, I just CVS up'd and all regression tests now pass...

Chris


Mon, 24 May 2004 09:40:42 +0800
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Re: New horology failure
[resending...]


On Sun, 23 May 2004 11:38:51 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne
<chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> wrote:
>I get this since Tom's commit.

>--- ./results/horology.out      Sun May 23 11:39:49 2004
>***************
>*** 1787,1796 ****
>!      | Sat Sep 22 18:19:20 2001 PDT | @ 34 years                    | Fri Sep 22 18:19:20 1967 PDT
>[...]
>--- 1787,1796 ----
>!      | Sat Sep 22 18:19:20 2001 PDT | @ 34 years                    | Fri Sep 22 18:19:20 1967 PST
>[...]

I got the same with snapshot-20040521 yesterday [i.e. 2004-05-22]
afternoon when I ran make check.  But only once.  make installcheck
passed all tests, and the failure didn't reappear when I tried make
check again.

I just got the failure again with make check after having configured
with a new install directory.  My guess is that horology needs some
datafile from the install location.

Servus
 Manfred

Mon, 24 May 2004 18:02:44 +0200
Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>
Re: New horology failure