On 12/07/2010 05:22 PM, Zach Welch wrote: > On 12/07/2010 01:47 AM, Joe Damato wrote: >> 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. > > Yes, that's what I'm using (plus the fresh stack of patches that I sent > yesterday). I have made several attempts to eliminate the problems > through rebuilding the package, so the problem is not that simple to > fix. I haven't made much progress on it today, but I will keep looking > at these issues.
I just finished bisecting the tree and found the patch that causes the system_calls.exp test failure. Specifically, the patch that adds libdl support [1] causes this problem. I am not certain what part of the patch causes this failure for me (or why you can't reproduce it), but I thought it worth reporting in case you have some ideas. [1] commit f0bd98b3e6753d8609a3054a61f2df6f9cdac10a -- Zach Welch CodeSourcery [email protected] (650) 331-3385 x743 _______________________________________________ Ltrace-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/ltrace-devel
