Bug#753099: glibc FTBFS on alpha: test suite failures
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:02:24PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> 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.
It's one of the string functions reading one byte passed the end
of the string. The badsalttest very carefully places a short
checksum at the very end of a page and marks the next page of
memory as invalid and the string function used in the bad salt
test (I've forgotten which one it was now) reads one byte too far.
So the worst it can do is result in a spurious segmentation
violation.
> > 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.
Interestingly these pass fine in the alphaev67 libc test suite. The
difference between libc6.1 and libc6.1-alphaev67 is the use of extra
CPU instructions such as the byte-word extension and the extra floating
point instructions for efficient conversion of integer to float and back.
Oh, there might be a special square-root instruction introduced too IIRC.
> > 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.
Once again they pass in the build of libc6.1-alphaev67 but not in
libc6.1. Maybe something about the byte-word extension?
Cheers
Michael.
Reply to: