Skip to content
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

shared_ptr node comparison test suite failures #99

Open
xnox opened this issue Apr 25, 2016 · 3 comments
Open

shared_ptr node comparison test suite failures #99

xnox opened this issue Apr 25, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

@xnox
Copy link
Contributor

xnox commented Apr 25, 2016

Checking �[1mt/osm/test_node.cpp�[0m...�[1;31m[TEST FAILED]�[0m
==========================
Running 7 test cases...
t/osm/test_node.cpp(50): error: in "Node/order_for_pointers": check true == ptr1 < ptr2 has failed [true != false]
t/osm/test_node.cpp(66): error: in "Node/order_for_pointers": check true == ptr1 < ptr2 has failed [true != false]

*** 2 failures are detected in the test module "Main"

Strangely enough the same test succeeds correctly on powerpc (big endian platform), but fails on all little endian platforms.

I'm not sure if the operators are defined correctly in the Node template, and/or if there is some standard error / implementation error / compiler error.

Full build log is at: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/256000022/buildlog_ubuntu-yakkety-amd64.osmium_0.0~20160124-b30afd3-1ubuntu1_BUILDING.txt.gz

@xnox
Copy link
Contributor Author

xnox commented Apr 25, 2016

and it passed on armhf too. this is really weird.

@joto
Copy link
Owner

joto commented Apr 25, 2016

This is the old version of osmium, bugs will not be fixed. Please switch to https://github.com/osmcode/libosmium.

@xnox
Copy link
Contributor Author

xnox commented Apr 26, 2016

@joto sure i understand and know that, but e.g. debian and ubuntu are still shipping this edition of the code in addition to the new one. I see that many pointer comparison tests are commented out in that file already, and on the surface they all look valid. I fear a compiler breakage, unless this shared_ptr comparisons are truly bogus. My c++ skills are not that good. Even if you have no intentions to fix this, please keep this ticket open for interested parties to look into =)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants