Thread

1. Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests on intel for 6.5.2

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 1999-09-30T13:25:04Z

   Christof Petig <christof.petig@wtal.de> writes:
   > Perhaps (strange thoughts come in to my mind ...) the compiler
   > optimizes the function call into a machine instruction ...
   > /tmp> cc -O2 -o test test.c -lm
   > /tmp> ./test
   > !finite
   
   > Looks like this is the case.
   
   Bingo!  I think you've got it.
   
   > I would propose another autoconf test. (I could easily do it.)
   
   Yes, we should not be assuming that finite() is a macro, which is what
   that #ifdef coding does.  We need a HAVE_FINITE configuration test.
   If you have time to prepare the diffs it'd be great.
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

2. Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests on intel for 6.5.2

   Christof Petig <christof.petig@wtal.de> — 1999-10-01T05:36:26Z

   Tom Lane wrote:
   
   > Yes, we should not be assuming that finite() is a macro, which is what
   > that #ifdef coding does.  We need a HAVE_FINITE configuration test.
   > If you have time to prepare the diffs it'd be great.
   
   Here they are
     Christof