Michael Meskes wrote:
> It seems ECPG regression tests trigger a bug in OpenBSD libc. Please try
> the attached test case. I should give ERANGE as error, but on OpenBSD
> errno is set to 0.
>
> I tried this test case on Linux, where it works, and OpenBSD 3.8 and 4.0
> (that is HEAD). On both these systems it doesn't. Now the question is
> what do we do?

a bit of testing shows that at least FreeBSD 4.10 behaves similiar to
OpenBSD/i386 and I found the following discussion too:

http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.c...ebsd-standards


that hints that setting ERANGE on an underflow (vs an overflow) is
implementation specific though I ws unable to verify that this is indeed
the case ...


Stefan

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> writes:
> In Plauger's _The Standard C Library_ (1992) on p 335 is an excerpt
> from the standard (I think). At the end of a section entitled
> "7.10.1.4 The strtod function" is the following: "If the correct
> value would cause underflow, zero is returned and the value of the
> macro ERANGE is stored in errno."

The Single Unix Spec also makes it clear that ERANGE on underflow is not
optional:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/...sh/strtod.html

I think there is no question that OpenBSD is broken. The question for
us is whether we should expend effort to work around that. We already
have a "small-is-zero" workaround comparison file in the main regression
tests, so my thought is that ecpg should probably do likewise ...

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq