On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:02:55PM +1200, Michael Cree wrote: > 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: [email protected] > > > 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.
Ok, find then. > > > 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. The thing to remember there is that the alphaev67 flavour is consider by the glibc build script as a cross-build, so some of the tests are not run. I don't know if it is the case there. > > > 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? Adam Conrad told me he has an idea about a patch to backport for this, but it seems he contacted you privately about that. Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B [email protected] http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
