mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) (08/13/90)
I just made perl 3.0, patchlevel 27 on an Apollo running DomainOS
sr10.2 (cc 6.6). It all worked ok, but during the regression tests, op.stat
failed:
1..56
not ok 1
not ok 2
ok 3
ok 4
#4 :650542356: != :650542358:
ok 5
-- since Apollos do have a rather unusual filesystem, this could be nothing to
worry about, but on the other hand, you never know...
Any explanations?
Thanx in advance,
mike
____ ____
/ / / / / Michael K. Gschwind mike@vlsivie.at
/ / / / / Technical University, Vienna mike@vlsivie.uucp
---/ Voice: (++43).1.58801 8144 e182202@awituw01.bitnet
/ Fax: (++43).1.569697
___/holtz@cascade.carleton.ca (Neal Holtz) (08/13/90)
In article <1756@tuvie> mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) writes: >I just made perl 3.0, patchlevel 27 on an Apollo running DomainOS >sr10.2 (cc 6.6). It all worked ok, but during the regression tests, op.stat >failed: >1..56 >not ok 1 >not ok 2 >ok 3 >ok 4 >#4 :650542356: != :650542358: >ok 5 > >-- since Apollos do have a rather unusual filesystem, this could be nothing to >worry about, but on the other hand, you never know... > >Any explanations? I didn't worry about it -- its just a check of creation time versus last modification time of a newly created file. I don't think there is any reason that they should necessarily be the same. -- Prof. Neal Holtz, Dept. of Civil Eng., Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada Internet: holtz@civeng.carleton.ca Tel: (613)788-5797 Fax: (613)788-3951
mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) (08/14/90)
In article <1990Aug13.144108.1109@ccs.carleton.ca> holtz@cascade.carleton.ca (Neal Holtz) writes: |>In article <1756@tuvie> mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) writes: |>>I just made perl 3.0, patchlevel 27 on an Apollo running DomainOS |>>sr10.2 (cc 6.6). It all worked ok, but during the regression tests, op.stat |>>failed: |>>1..56 |>>not ok 1 |>>not ok 2 |>>ok 3 |>>ok 4 |>>#4 :650542356: != :650542358: |>>ok 5 |>> |>>-- since Apollos do have a rather unusual filesystem, this could be nothing to |>>worry about, but on the other hand, you never know... |>> |>>Any explanations? |> |>I didn't worry about it -- its just a check of creation time versus last modification |>time of a newly created file. I don't think there is any reason that they should |>necessarily be the same. Test 2 does so. But test 1 checks for the number of links to a file. It _is_ rather unusual that a newly created file should have more then one link to it. bye, mike ____ ____ / / / / / Michael K. Gschwind mike@vlsivie.at / / / / / Technical University, Vienna mike@vlsivie.uucp ---/ Voice: (++43).1.58801 8144 e182202@awituw01.bitnet / Fax: (++43).1.569697 ___/