Hey Carlos - When submitting these upstream, will you consider adding
test cases for these failures? feraiseexcept should certainly be tested
somewhere. I don't know if there's a reasonable way to put in the test
for the syscalls, though.
If you don't have time, that's fine too. I just like to
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 08:03:59AM -0400, Jeff Bailey wrote:
Hey Carlos - When submitting these upstream, will you consider adding
test cases for these failures? feraiseexcept should certainly be tested
somewhere. I don't know if there's a reasonable way to put in the test
for the syscalls,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 08:03:59AM -0400, Jeff Bailey wrote:
Hey Carlos - When submitting these upstream, will you consider adding
test cases for these failures? feraiseexcept should certainly be tested
somewhere. I don't know if there's a reasonable way to put in the test
for the syscalls,
- Looking into mlockall failures.
Passes QA on a 2.4 kernel (posix testsuite). 2.6 seems broken, though
that is unrelated to glibc.
Yes, this is a known problem. We've seen it on ia64 also. I believe
the fix is in Linus's tree, but I'm not sure if it made it into test8
or not.
John Marvin
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 07:50:05PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Will produce a new patch and new testing debs. Thanks go to all the
testers that turned up these problems.
New debs fix reported problems:
a. Six argument syscall faiulres.
b. feraiseexcept(FE_INEXACT) doesn't raise FE_INEXACT
- Looking into mlockall failures.
Passes QA on a 2.4 kernel (posix testsuite). 2.6 seems broken, though
that is unrelated to glibc.
Yes, this is a known problem. We've seen it on ia64 also. I believe
the fix is in Linus's tree, but I'm not sure if it made it into test8
or not.
John Marvin
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 07:50:05PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Will produce a new patch and new testing debs. Thanks go to all the
testers that turned up these problems.
New debs fix reported problems:
a. Six argument syscall faiulres.
b. feraiseexcept(FE_INEXACT) doesn't raise FE_INEXACT
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:12:52PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Please wait 2 days before doing the upload, I am in the process
of getting other testers to make sure this release is of the
highest quality possible. If the testers do not agree with the
release quality I will request by email
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 02:13:42PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:12:52PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Please wait 2 days before doing the upload, I am in the process
of getting other testers to make sure this release is of the
highest quality possible. If the
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:12:52PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Please wait 2 days before doing the upload, I am in the process
of getting other testers to make sure this release is of the
highest quality possible. If the testers do not agree with the
release quality I will request by email
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 02:13:42PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:12:52PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Please wait 2 days before doing the upload, I am in the process
of getting other testers to make sure this release is of the
highest quality possible. If the
debian-glibc,
Thanks for all the patience, and help from too many people
to name in a short email (you know who you are!) :)
Please wait 2 days before doing the upload, I am in the process
of getting other testers to make sure this release is of the
highest quality possible. If the testers do
12 matches
Mail list logo
