tag 18500 notabug close 18500 stop On 09/18/2014 02:33 PM, Philipp Thomas wrote: > The testsuite of coreutils 8.22 is failing on s390. Can anybody help me > pinpointing the culprit? > > Here is the relevant part of the log: > > FAIL: tests/misc/shuf-reservoir > ===============================
> + valgrind --leak-check=summary --error-exitcode=1 shuf -n 1 -o out_1_1 > ==10209== Memcheck, a memory error detector > ==10209== Copyright (C) 2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al. > ==10209== Using Valgrind-3.9.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info > ==10209== Command: shuf -n 1 -o out_1_1 > ==10209== > + seq 1 > --10209-- WARNING: unhandled syscall: 326 > --10209-- You may be able to write your own handler. > --10209-- Read the file README_MISSING_SYSCALL_OR_IOCTL. > --10209-- Nevertheless we consider this a bug. Please report > --10209-- it at http://valgrind.org/support/bug_reports.html. > 1 > ==10209== > ==10209== HEAP SUMMARY: > ==10209== in use at exit: 37,112 bytes in 5 blocks > ==10209== total heap usage: 8 allocs, 3 frees, 37,188 bytes allocated > ==10209== > ==10209== LEAK SUMMARY: > ==10209== definitely lost: 32,832 bytes in 3 blocks > ==10209== indirectly lost: 4,280 bytes in 2 blocks > ==10209== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks > ==10209== still reachable: 0 bytes in 0 blocks > ==10209== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks > ==10209== Rerun with --leak-check=full to see details of leaked memory > ==10209== > ==10209== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v > ==10209== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0) > + EXPECTED_LINES=1 > + test 1 -lt 1 > ++ grep '^[0-9][0-9]*$' out_1_1 > ++ sort -un > ++ wc -l > + GOOD_LINES=0 > ++ wc -l > + LINES=0 > + test 1 -eq 0 > + return 1 > + fail=1 > + echo 'shuf-reservoir-sampling failed with IN_N=1 OUT_N=1' > shuf-reservoir-sampling failed with IN_N=1 OUT_N=1 > It seems to be a limitation of the valgrind implementation on your system, which is causing valgrind to bail out without shuf outputting anything? I could put an explicit check for that and skip in the test, however it would be best to avoid that by fixing valgrind instead. http://valgrind.org/docs/manual/dist.readme-missing.html The patch in this case seems simple? https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=331337 thanks, Pádraig.