[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[m68k] eglibc expected(?) testsuite results



Just FYI, maybe you can do something with it (or not).
I built the latest eglibc 2.13-23 without nocheck.


make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/eglibc-2.13/build-tree/m68k-libc'
#
# Testsuite failures, someone should be working towards
# fixing these! They are listed here for the purpose of
# regression testing during builds.
# Format: <Failed test>, Error <Make error code> [(ignored)]
#
annexc.out, Error 1 (ignored)
bug-nextafter.out, Error 24
bug-nexttoward.out, Error 32
bug-regex20.out, Error 139
check-localplt.out, Error 1
sort-test.out, Error 1
test-double.out, Error 1
test-fenv.out, Error 1
test-float.out, Error 1
test-idouble.out, Error 1
test-ifloat.out, Error 1
test-misc.out, Error 1
tst-atomic-long.out, Error 1
tst-atomic.out, Error 1
tst-mqueue5.out, Error 1
tst-mqueue6.out, Error 1
tst-mutexpi2.out, Error 1
tst-mutexpi4.out, Error 1
tst-mutexpi5.out, Error 1
tst-mutexpi5a.out, Error 1
tst-mutexpi6.out, Error 1
tst-mutexpi7.out, Error 1
tst-mutexpi7a.out, Error 1
tst-mutexpi9.out, Error 1
tst-robust1.out, Error 1
tst-robust2.out, Error 1
tst-robust3.out, Error 1
tst-robust4.out, Error 1
tst-robust5.out, Error 1
tst-robust6.out, Error 1
tst-robust7.out, Error 1
tst-robust8.out, Error 1
tst-robust9.out, Error 1
tst-robustpi1.out, Error 1
tst-robustpi2.out, Error 1
tst-robustpi3.out, Error 1
tst-robustpi4.out, Error 1
tst-robustpi5.out, Error 1
tst-robustpi6.out, Error 1
tst-robustpi7.out, Error 1
tst-robustpi8.out, Error 1
tst-rxspencer.out, Error 139
*** WARNING ***
Please generate expected testsuite results for this arch!
*** WARNING ***
touch /tmp/buildd/eglibc-2.13/stamp-dir/check_libc


bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
Support mksh as /bin/sh and RoQA dash NOW!
‣ src:bash (239 (257) bugs: 0 RC, 166 (180) I&N, 73 (77) M&W, 0 F&P)
‣ src:dash (72 (82) bugs: 3 RC, 27 (30) I&N, 42 (49) M&W, 0 F&P)
‣ src:mksh (1 bug: 0 RC, 0 I&N, 1 M&W, 0 F&P)
http://qa.debian.org/data/bts/graphs/d/dash.png is pretty red, innit?


Reply to: