This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Testing glibc 2.24 on remaining machines.
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, vapier at gentoo dot org, adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org
- Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 11:57:16 -0400
- Subject: Re: Testing glibc 2.24 on remaining machines.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <521d3f7a-6375-11c7-5987-ad2f0f1ab290@redhat.com> <20160720.153931.575029361394679476.davem@davemloft.net>
On 07/20/2016 06:39 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
> Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 14:11:27 -0400
>
>> Are you able to do the sparc and sparc64 testing?
>
> I did v9 sparc and sparc64 runs and they mostly look fine.
>
> I had to apply this (year old) patch to fix the wcsmbs comparison test
> case. The memory compared must be aligned suitably for the type
> being used, otherwise we get SIGBUS on platforms like sparc:
>
> diff --git a/string/test-strncmp.c b/string/test-strncmp.c
> index 8c0a331..d392248 100644
> --- a/string/test-strncmp.c
> +++ b/string/test-strncmp.c
> @@ -156,6 +156,9 @@ do_test_limit (size_t align1, size_t align2, size_t len, size_t n, int max_char,
> size_t i, align_n;
> CHAR *s1, *s2;
>
> + align1 &= ~(CHARBYTES - 1);
> + align2 &= ~(CHARBYTES - 1);
> +
> if (n == 0)
> {
> s1 = (CHAR *) (buf1 + page_size);
> @@ -204,6 +207,9 @@ do_test (size_t align1, size_t align2, size_t len, size_t n, int max_char,
> size_t i;
> CHAR *s1, *s2;
>
> + align1 &= ~(CHARBYTES - 1);
> + align2 &= ~(CHARBYTES - 1);
> +
> if (n == 0)
> return;
Dave,
Are you able to update the wiki page with your testing information?
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.24
If you can't, just paste the failure lists here and the gcc/binutils/kernel
version you used and I'll update it.
Testing 32-bit and 64-bit information is also important to know.
--
Cheers,
Carlos.