Bug#753099: glibc FTBFS on alpha: test suite failures
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 09:53:30PM +1200, Michael Cree wrote:
> Source: glibc
> Version: 2.19-4
> Severity: important
> User: debian-alpha@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: alpha
> Justification: Fails to build from source but built in the past.
>
> Finally the fixed gcc-4.8 arrived, however the rebuild of glibc on alpha
> failed with unexpected test suite failures. From the log:
>
> Encountered regressions that don't match expected failures (debian/testsuite-checking/expected-results-alpha-linux-gnu-libc):
> badsalttest.out, Error 1
This one looks might be worrying, as it might affect the crypt()
function, and thus safety of passwords. Do you have more details about
the failure.
> test-double.out, Error 1
> test-float.out, Error 1
> test-snan.out, Error 1
I guess these three are actually due to the new FP tests that have been
added in 2.19, so it should be relatively fine ignoring them, though it
might be a good idea to confirm that. However it also means that any
new serious failure that might happen latter would not be detected that
way.
> tst-backtrace2.out, Error 1
> tst-backtrace3.out, Error 1
> tst-backtrace4.out, Error 1
> tst-backtrace5.out, Error 1
> tst-backtrace6.out, Error 1
I don't think having the backtrace function working is something
critical for a system, so yes they can be ignored. It might be
interesting to see what caused them to stop working though.
> tst-ptrguard1.o, Error 1
> tst-stackguard1-static.o, Error 1
> tst-stackguard1.o, Error 1
>
> The last three are fixed by upstream commit a3df56fcae7
> (alpha: Fix __pointer_chk_guard definition for the testsuite).
Thanks for the pointer, I have just committed the patch to the SVN.
> The others I am inclined to have added to the expected failure list in
> debian/testsuite-checking/expected-results-alpha-linux-gnu-libc. Note
> that they only need to be added to the alpha libc library not to
> the alphaev67 variant libary as all of these tests pass correctly
> under the latter library.
I think that's fine, except for badsalttest.out. Do you have more
details about the failure, so that we can conclude if it is fine
ignoring it or not? Then I'll do the changes in the expected results.
Aurelien
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: