Re: gnumeric and compiler attitude

[Malcolm Tredinnick <malcolm commsecure com au>]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 09:48:02PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > Can someone please explain to me why gnumeric has put a block in
> > configure about gcc 2.96 (ie default compiler on RH/Mandrake) 
> > 
> > I fail to see why I should install a seperate compiler for one package 
> 
> Feel free to remove the check if you are willing to get incorrect
> answers for some of the statistical functions.  There are so many
> patch levels of 2.96 floating around and there are no neat simple
> tests for the bogus results that we are left with a blanket no 2.96
> restriction for now.

Are there known test cases that give the bad results? I hunted around the
gnumeric mailing list for an explanation of this when the check originally went
in and found nothing.

It would be nice to have a "this function should return this, but we have seen
bogus results" type test or two for after I have built it.

Malcolm

--