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

Re: bug#65978: comp-tests-ret-type-spec-71 fails on 32-bit powerpc



Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> Cc: debian-powerpc <debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org>
>> From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
>> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 14:28:24 +0200
>> 
>> Hello!
>> 
>> The test comp-tests-ret-type-spec-71 reproducibly fails on 32-bit powerpc:
>> 
>> Test comp-tests-ret-type-spec-71 backtrace:
>>   signal(ert-test-failed (((should (equal (cl-third (subr-type (symbol
>>   ert-fail(((should (equal (cl-third (subr-type (symbol-function f-nam
>>   comp-tests-check-ret-type-spec((defun comp-tests-ret-type-spec-f (x)
>>   #f(compiled-function () #<bytecode -0x221c87d>)()
>>   ert--run-test-internal(#s(ert--test-execution-info :test #s(ert-test
>>   ert-run-test(#s(ert-test :name comp-tests-ret-type-spec-71 :document
>>   ert-run-or-rerun-test(#s(ert--stats :selector ... :tests ... :test-m
>>   ert-run-tests((not (or (tag :expensive-test) (tag :unstable))) #f(co
>>   ert-run-tests-batch((not (or (tag :expensive-test) (tag :unstable)))
>>   ert-run-tests-batch-and-exit((not (or (tag :expensive-test) (tag :un
>>   command-line-1(("-L" ":/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/debian/build
>>   command-line()
>>   normal-top-level()
>> Test comp-tests-ret-type-spec-71 condition:
>>     (ert-test-failed
>>      ((should
>>        (equal
>> 	(cl-third ...)
>> 	ret-type))
>>       :form
>>       (equal
>>        (or
>> 	(member 0.0 -0.0)
>> 	(integer 0 0))
>>        (or
>> 	(member -0.0 0.0)
>> 	(integer 0 0)))
>>       :value nil :explanation
>>       (list-elt 1
>> 		(list-elt 1
>> 			  (different-atoms 0.0 -0.0)))))
>>    FAILED  145/166  comp-tests-ret-type-spec-71 (0.399696 sec)
>
> Something about the sign of zero, I guess?  Adding Andreas, in the
> hope that he will have some suggestions.

Mmmh, I guess some of our sorting or compare function behaves
differently on this architecture... I'll try look closer at the code
tomorrow and try to guess something more precise.

Thanks

   Andrea


Reply to: