Re: Bug#1111952: goffice: fails to build from source on ppc64

On 2025-08-25 21:14, Trupti wrote:
> On 2025-08-25 19:38, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> Hello Trupti,
>> 
>> Please apply the workaround for all PowerPC-based targets to avoid 
>> extra work.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Adrian
> 
> 
> Okay, sure Adrian.
> 
> Thanks,
> Trupti


Hello,

The workaround mentioned earlier that is "disabling long doubles" 
(https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/goffice/-/issues/59)configuring  is not 
suitable in this case, as it was intended only for the failure of 
test-math test.

In our case, two test cases are failing: 1) test-format  and 2) 
test-dtoa

Below are the test logs:

  GNU nano 8.4                                    tests/test-suite.log
===========================================
    goffice 0.10.57: tests/test-suite.log
===========================================

# TOTAL: 5
# PASS:  3
# SKIP:  0
# XFAIL: 0
# FAIL:  2
# XPASS: 0
# ERROR: 0

System information (uname -a): Linux 6.12.38+deb13-powerpc64le-64k #1 
SMP Debian 6.12.38-1 (2025-07-16) ppc64le
Distribution information (/etc/os-release):
PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 13 (trixie)"
NAME="Debian GNU/Linux"
VERSION_ID="13"
VERSION="13 (trixie)"
VERSION_CODENAME=trixie
DEBIAN_VERSION_FULL=13.0
ID=debian
HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/"

.. contents:: :depth: 2

FAIL: test-format
=================

go_render_general: 1.9999999990000001 12 -> "1.999999999"
go_render_general: 1.9999999990000001 11 -> "1.999999999"
go_render_general: 1.9999999990000001 10 -> "1.99999999"
Expected "2"
**
ERROR:test-format.c:22:test_general_format_1: assertion failed: (0)
Bail out! ERROR:test-format.c:22:test_general_format_1: assertion 
failed: (0)
FAIL test-format (exit status: 134)

FAIL: test-dtoa
===============

Failed for 0x1p-44 ".17g" (got "5.6843418860808014e-14", expected 
"5.6843418860808015e-14")
Candidate "0.25000000000000006" differs from result 
"0.25000000000000005".
Candidate "0.12500000000000003" differs from result 
"0.12500000000000002".
Candidate "0.12499999999999999" differs from result 
"0.12499999999999998".
Round-trip failure for shortest 0x1.0000000000001p-5 (got 
"0.03125000000000000", expected "0.03125000000000001")
Candidate "0.031249999999999997" differs from result 
"0.031249999999999996".
Candidate "0.007812500000000002" differs from result 
"0.007812500000000001".
Round-trip failure for shortest 0x1.0000000000001p-8 (got 
"0.003906250000000000", expected "0.003906250000000001")
Candidate "0.0039062499999999996" differs from result 
"0.0039062499999999995".
Candidate "0.0019531249999999998" differs from result 
"0.0019531249999999997".
Round-trip failure for shortest 0x1.fffffffffffffp-11 (got 
"0.0009765624999999998", expected "0.000976562499999999>
Candidate "0.00048828124999999995" differs from result 
"0.00048828124999999994".
Candidate "0.00012207031250000003" differs from result 
"0.00012207031250000002".
Candidate "0.00012207031249999999" differs from result 
"0.00012207031249999998".
Candidate "6.2565096724471904e-148" is sub-optimal vs. 
"6.256509672447191e-148".
Candidate "6.2901843453097005e-235" is sub-optimal vs. 
"6.290184345309701e-235".
Candidate "7.6784476871456305e-239" is sub-optimal vs. 
"7.678447687145631e-239".
Round-trip failure for shortest -0x1.f3f3333333333p+9 (got "-999.8", 
expected "-999.9")
Round-trip failure for shortest -0x1.8ff5c28f5c28fp+6 (got "-99.98", 
expected "-99.99")
Round-trip failure for shortest -0x1.998f1d3ed527ep-4 (got "-0.09998", 
expected "-0.09999")
Round-trip failure for shortest -0x1.47a5b0ff10ecbp-7 (got "-0.009998", 
expected "-0.009999")
Round-trip failure for shortest -0x1.061e273273f09p-10 (got 
"-0.0009998", expected "-0.0009999")
.
.
.


Thanks,
Trupti