This is the mail archive of the
libffi-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the libffi project.
Re: libffi-3.0.12 : test cls_struct_va1.c false failure?
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: Dennis Clarke <dclarke at blastwave dot org>
- Cc: green at moxielogic dot com, libffi-discuss at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 20:11:06 -0800
- Subject: Re: libffi-3.0.12 : test cls_struct_va1.c false failure?
- References: <fbb3f065298e.512a7b48@blastwave.org>
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Dennis Clarke <dclarke@blastwave.org> wrote:
>
> Dear AG et al :
>
> OKay, making good progress here on a Niagara T2 server running Solaris 10.
>
> Firstly we have what looks to me as a false failure. In the testsuite log I see
> this :
> .
> .
> .
> spawn /opt/solarisstudio12.3/bin/cc ../../testsuite/libffi.call/cls_struct_va1.c
> -errfmt=error -erroff=%none -errshort=full -xstrconst -xildoff -m64 -xmemalign=
> 8s -xnolibmil -Xa -xcode=pic32 -xregs=no%appl -xlibmieee -mc -g -xs -ftrap=%none
> -Qy -xbuiltin=%none -xdebugformat=dwarf -xunroll=1 -xtarget=ultraT2 -xcache=8/1
> 6/4:4096/64/16 -I/usr/local/build/libffi-3.0.12_SunOS5.10_sparcv9.002/sparc-sun-
> solaris2.10/testsuite/../include -I../../testsuite/../include -I/usr/local/build
> /libffi-3.0.12_SunOS5.10_sparcv9.002/sparc-sun-solaris2.10/testsuite/../include/
> .. -L/usr/local/build/libffi-3.0.12_SunOS5.10_sparcv9.002/sparc-sun-solaris2.10/
> testsuite/../.libs -lffi -lm -o ./cls_struct_va1.exe^M
> PASS: libffi.call/cls_struct_va1.c (test for excess errors)
> Setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH to :/usr/local/build/libffi-3.0.12_SunOS5.10_sparcv9.002
> /sparc-sun-solaris2.10/testsuite/../.libs::/usr/local/build/libffi-3.0.12_SunOS5
> .10_sparcv9.002/sparc-sun-solaris2.10/testsuite/../.libs
> spawn [open ...]^M
> 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 20 21
> res: 1054032
> PASS: libffi.call/cls_struct_va1.c execution test
> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_struct_va1.c output pattern test, is 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 20 21
> res: 1054032
> , should match 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 20 21^M?
> res: 42
Look at the last line for both:
res: 1054032
res: 42
They are not the same are they? So this is not a false failure.
Thanks,
Andrew