On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Zach Welch <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Today, I built and tested the new 'test' branch on ARM, and several new > failures have appeared. Here is the terse output from the test suite: > > ... > Running ./ltrace.main/parameters.exp ... > FAIL: func_double(3.40*, -3.40*).*= -3.40* in > /scratch/zwelch/ltrace/testsuite/ltrace.main/parameters.ltrace for 0 > times ,should be 1 > FAIL: <... func_call resumed> \"x\", \"y\") in > /scratch/zwelch/ltrace/testsuite/ltrace.main/parameters.ltrace for 0 > times ,should be 1 > ... > Running ./ltrace.main/system_calls.exp ... > FAIL: SYS_munmap in > /scratch/zwelch/ltrace/testsuite/ltrace.main/system_calls.ltrace for 1 > times ,should be 2 > ... > Running ./ltrace.minor/libdl-simple.exp ... > FAIL: Fail to trace libdl loaded function! > ... > > The first and last failures are caused by well known patches, while the > system_calls failure will require more investigation on my part.
This is interesting because I don't get the same failures. j...@gcc33:~/ltrace$ uname -a Linux gcc33 2.6.31.12-ER1-efikamx #1 Tue Jan 26 00:57:33 CST 2010 armv7l GNU/Linux j...@gcc33:~/ltrace$ file ltrace ltrace: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, ARM, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.16, not stripped Only failures I get are: FAIL: func_double(3.40*, -3.40*).*= -3.40* in /home/joe/ltrace/testsuite/ltrace.main/parameters.ltrace for 0 times ,should be 1 FAIL: <... func_call resumed> \"x\", \"y\") in /home/joe/ltrace/testsuite/ltrace.main/parameters.ltrace for 0 times ,should be 1 libdl and syscalls both work for me. Can you ensure that you were building the correct version of the source? Top of the tree I just built has sha: ccb0b06787e9132ddf9586148223c6dc0cc3ca20. Thanks, joe _______________________________________________ Ltrace-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/ltrace-devel
