[Ltrace-devel] new ARM failures

[Zach Welch]

On 12/07/2010 01:47 AM, Joe Damato wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Zach Welch <zwelch at codesourcery.com> 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.
> 
> joe at gcc33:~/ltrace$ uname -a
> Linux gcc33 2.6.31.12-ER1-efikamx #1 Tue Jan 26 00:57:33 CST 2010
> armv7l GNU/Linux
> 
> joe at 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.

-- 
Zach Welch
CodeSourcery
zwelch at codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x743