New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Test failures on OpenBSD #2386
Comments
From Pascal.Stumpf@cubes.deThe following test failures have so far been confirmed for all tested Test Summary Report t/spec/S02-builtin_data_types/instants-and-durations.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 13 Failed: 1) |
From @cokeOn Wed Mar 09 10:38:06 2011, Pascal.Stumpf@cubes.de wrote:
I know it's been a while, but can you confirm that these failures are still occurring with rakudo -- |
The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open' |
From Pascal.Stumpf@cubes.deOn Sat, 25 May 2013 22:08:00 -0700, "Will Coleda via RT" wrote:
Hi, these are the failures with parrot 5.4.0, nqp 2013.05 and rakudo HEAD on Test Summary Report t/spec/S01-perl-5-integration/array.t (Wstat: 256 Tests: 0 Failed: 0) |
From @FROGGSHi, does this happen with parrot-5.2 too? Looks like I should set up a vm for testing... Am 27.05.2013 18:36, schrieb Pascal Stumpf:
|
From @cokeHow are you running the spec tests? - it looks like you've included some You need "make spectest". On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Pascal Stumpf <Pascal.Stumpf@cubes.de>wrote:
-- |
From Pascal.Stumpf@cubes.deOn Wed, 29 May 2013 05:42:27 -0700, "Will Coleda via RT" wrote:
I think I did a "gmake spectest_full". Shall I run just the spectest
|
From @cokeOn Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Pascal Stumpf <Pascal.Stumpf@cubes.de>wrote:
spectest_full is only useful if you're a developer looking for more tests If you could rerun with just 'gmake spectest' that'll give us a much better You can get verbose output for a single test file with: 'make Thanks. -- |
From Pascal.Stumpf@cubes.deOn Thu, 30 May 2013 08:58:50 -0700, "Will Coleda via RT" wrote:
Hi, here's the test summary and output from failed tests: Test Summary Report t/spec/S02-literals/char-by-name.rakudo (Wstat: 256 Tests: 0 Failed: 0) t/spec/S03-operators/arith.rakudo .. Test Summary Report t/spec/S03-operators/arith.rakudo (Wstat: 0 Tests: 143 Failed: 1) t/spec/S19-command-line/dash-e.t .. Test Summary Report t/spec/S19-command-line/dash-e.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 3 Failed: 2) t/spec/S32-num/power.rakudo .. Test Summary Report t/spec/S32-num/power.rakudo (Wstat: 0 Tests: 50 Failed: 1) Thank you for looking at this!
|
From @usev6Hi, again it's been a while. I installed a current Rakudo on OpenBSD 5.5 (amd64) and happily most of the test failures didn't occur anymore. On Moar I had a clean spectest. On Parrot I had only one failure. (Please note, that I had to install ICU ("pkg_add icu4c"). Without that package some of the last mentioned failed tests produced failures with Parrot as well.) t/spec/S19-command-line/dash-e.t (Wstat: 512 Tests: 3 Failed: 2) AFAIU this is expected since Parrot on OpenBSD does not support command line arguments other than ASCII. (Support for UTF-8 and ISO-8859-1 was added for Linux in 2011: http://irclog.perlgeek.de/parrot/2011-01-09#i_3167081.) I didn't try to build and run Rakudo on JVM. |
From @usev6Just for the records: Looking a bit closer I saw that the failing tests in S03-operators/arith.t and S32-num/power.t (reported on 2013-06-03) where identical. Both test whether "1**Inf" equals 1. Interestingly I got exactly those test failures on a current version of NetBSD (6.1.4): netbsd-6.1.4$ ./perl6-m -e "(1**Inf).say" Last years OpenBSD also answered "NaN" (see above). A current version of OpenBSD (5.5) gives 1: openbsd-5.5$ ./perl6-m -e "(1**Inf).say" I'm not sure how to interpret this difference. Maybe it's related to (differing/changing) functionalities of the operating system? |
1 similar comment
From @usev6Just for the records: Looking a bit closer I saw that the failing tests in S03-operators/arith.t and S32-num/power.t (reported on 2013-06-03) where identical. Both test whether "1**Inf" equals 1. Interestingly I got exactly those test failures on a current version of NetBSD (6.1.4): netbsd-6.1.4$ ./perl6-m -e "(1**Inf).say" Last years OpenBSD also answered "NaN" (see above). A current version of OpenBSD (5.5) gives 1: openbsd-5.5$ ./perl6-m -e "(1**Inf).say" I'm not sure how to interpret this difference. Maybe it's related to (differing/changing) functionalities of the operating system? |
From @masak<masak> p6: say 1 ** Inf # [RT #85750] |
From @masak<bartolin> masak: S03-operators/arith.t mentions http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Indeterminate.html, as I understand it this argues in favour of 1 ** Inf == NaN |
From @stmukI ran a full spectest with no failures on OpenBSD 5.7 on Mar 22 2015 On Wed Mar 09 10:38:06 2011, Pascal.Stumpf@cubes.de wrote:
|
From @usev6On Wed Oct 01 22:51:30 2014, masak wrote:
I've found some references pro "1**Inf returns 1": * bug report for NetBSD saying "C99 and IEEE 754 revised 2008(?) reportedly state that this should be 1" * Quote from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaN)​:
* The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 7, IEEE Std 1003.1, 2013 Edition: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ |
From @usev6On Sun Mar 22 11:57:34 2015, steve.mynott+bitcard@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! I'm closing this ticket as 'resolved'. For the test failures on NetBSD (1**Inf not returning 1) there is a separate ticket now: https://rt-archive.perl.org/perl6/Ticket/Display.html?id=124147 Christian |
@usev6 - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved' |
Migrated from rt.perl.org#85750 (status was 'resolved')
Searchable as RT85750$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: