[debbugs-tracker] bug#20017: closed (guile 2.0.11 make check failure for ppc architecture)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:09:01 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#20017: guile 2.0.11 make check failure for ppc 
architecture
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #20017,
regarding guile 2.0.11 make check failure for ppc architecture
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
20017: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20017
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> guile 2.0.11 make check failure for ppc architecture
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:57:56 +0100
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
>
>
>
>
> guile 2.0.11 make check failure for ppc architecture on opensuse 13.2
>
> details of the log is available at:
> https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/openSUSE:Factory:PowerPC/guile
> https://build.opensuse.org/build/openSUSE:Factory:PowerPC/standard/ppc/guile/_log
>
> There are two failing tests:
> ===
> [ 1223s] FAIL: fractions.test: fractions: (eqv? (expt 2 1/2) (sqrt 2))
> [ 1223s] FAIL: fractions.test: fractions: (eqv? (expt 2.0 1/2) (sqrt 2))
> ===
>
> I have a guest on which I am able to recreate the problem,
> but I do not know anything about guile to do investigation of the problem.
>
> any suggestions ?
>
> --
> Michel Normand
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#20017: guile 2.0.11 make check failure for ppc architecture
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:09:01 +0200
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
>
>
>
>
> On Thu 23 Jun 2016 17:28, Normand <address@hidden> writes:
>
> >> (expt 2 1/2)
> >> (expt 2.0 1/2)
> >> (sqrt 2)
> >
> > The bugzilla should probably be closed now,
> > because since then it seems that problem disapeared.
> > If I do the manual tests as suggested there is no differences in expressions 
> > outputs as reported below.
>
> Cool, that was easy :-)
>
> Happy hacking,
>
> Andy
>
>
> --- End Message ---