This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Chroot testsuite
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, Will Newton <will dot newton at linaro dot org>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:01:07 -0500
- Subject: Re: Chroot testsuite
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52A6732E dot 4030905 at redhat dot com> <CANu=DmgWNhyxq9vE37bvvD=PrDrfi0Y+eAMv0i2KZPxaEnEOxw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131210111201 dot GA5309 at domone dot podge>
On 12/10/2013 06:12 AM, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:30:50AM +0000, Will Newton wrote:
>> On 10 December 2013 01:49, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>>> I've had one report that the pointer mangling support on 32-bit ARM
>>> that was added in October might be causing the Ruby [1] testsuite
>>> to fail.
>>>
>>> Could you try running the ruby testsuite yourself using the new
>>> 32-bit glibc runtime to see if you can reproduce the problem
>>> yourself?
>>
>> Sure, I'll take a look.
>>
>>> Does Linaro have a rawhide-esque setup for testing like this or
>>> do you just debootstrap a chroot and use that?
>>
>> We have monthly builds of OpenEmbedded and Ubuntu:
>>
>> http://www.linaro.org/downloads/
>>
>> Probably not as good for continuous integration as Rawhide though.
>>
> This is one of my todo-list items that its bit hard for users if
> patch fixes a problem.
>
> It would be simpler if we convert testsuite to a script that chroots,
> runs kvm with new glibc installed and run busybox and run tests there.
>
> This would make better coverage and catch errors quicker as probably a
> gcc test that we try first would crash. If gdb would work we could
> quickly find problem.
>
I agree.
We need some kind of VM-based or chroot-based testing.
Cheers,
Carlos.