[PATCH v7 00/13] GLIBC LoongArch PATCHES

[caiyinyu]

Summary of test results:
        1 FAIL
     4576 PASS
       22 UNSUPPORTED
       12 XFAIL
        6 XPASS
Overall this is looking good. Thanks for your testing.


So, is it necessary to release another version of v8??


在 2022/7/24 下午8:02, WANG Xuerui 写道:
> On 7/24/22 19:51, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
>> On Sun, 2022-07-24 at 17:49 +0800, WANG Xuerui wrote:
>>
>>> Of these, the ifunc failures are "expected" by you, the
>>> elf/check-abi-libc diff is trivial (maybe you just didn't rebase as
>>> frequently):
>>>
>>> --- ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/loongarch/lp64/libc.abilist 2022-07-23
>>> 14:45:57.490029442 +0800
>>> +++ /home/xenon/src/glibc/build/libc.symlist    2022-07-24
>>> 13:44:10.416642655 +0800
>>> @@ -496 +496 @@ GLIBC_2.36 _mcount F
>>> -GLIBC_2.36 _nl_default_dirname D 0x12
>>> +GLIBC_2.36 _nl_default_dirname D 0x17
>>> @@ -541,0 +542,3 @@ GLIBC_2.36 alphasort64 F
>>> +GLIBC_2.36 arc4random F
>>> +GLIBC_2.36 arc4random_buf F
>>> +GLIBC_2.36 arc4random_uniform F
>> arc4random is just merged two days ago.
> Yeah; I meant to alert the relevant people (patch author or committer) 
> to not forget adjusting this.
>>
>>> The others may need some love. Of course they're possibly because of my
>>> particular environment (Gentoo is a little bit different than 
>>> "ordinary"
>>> distros like Debian/Fedora, and I already have to symlink the
>>> libgcc_s.so and libstdc++.so to pass the nptl tests at all)
>> I can tell tst-nss-files-hosts-long is most likely PR24816.  For the
>> others I'm not sure.
>>
>> By "symlink libgcc_s.so and libstdc++.so" I guess you are running tests
>> in a temporary system ("Gentoo stage 1" IIRC).  In LFS we also get some
>> additional test failures in the temporary system [1] so it's better to
>> rerun the tests in a full system.
>>
>> (In earlier LFS releases we also needed to symlink libgcc_s.so and
>> libstdc++.so for glibc tests, but it's no longer needed now thanks to a
>> major refactoring [2].)
>
> Of course my Gentoo devbox is fully bootstrapped and working :-)
>
> I'm referring to the Gentoo-specific behavior of slotted gcc 
> installation, where gcc-provided libraries (including the two 
> mentioned here) are NOT present in the usual place, but rather in 
> /usr/lib/gcc/<PACKAGE VERSION>. Additional magic is present for the 
> "active" gcc to be switchable via the gcc-config tool. Binutils is 
> similar; there is a binutils-config too.
>
> But anyway, the nptl tests mostly passed, with the only 2 failures 
> related to the botched gdb on LoongArch (I compiled from the upstream 
> HEAD and still it doesn't work). The others are worth looking into too 
> but don't seem to cause any problem so far.
>
>>
>> [1]: 
>> https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/systemd/chapter08/glibc.html
>> [2]: 
>> https://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/arc/lfs-dev/2020-05/msg00000.html
>>
>> My test result on LFS (fully built) with a patched ld seems clean.  The
>> patch is originally published at
>> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2022-July/121852.html, but
>> it's in a large series introducing new relocation types.  I managed to
>> rebased and adjusted the patch so it can be applied individually for
>> binutils-gdb master branch.  The patch is attached in this mail.
>>
>> +Zhensong: is there any possibility to merge this patch for binutils
>> master and 2.39 release branch (including 2.38 release branch would be
>> even better) so at least glibc ifunc tests will be happy?
>>
>> XPASS: conform/UNIX98/ndbm.h/linknamespace
>> XPASS: conform/XOPEN2K/ndbm.h/linknamespace
>> XPASS: conform/XOPEN2K8/ndbm.h/linknamespace
>> XPASS: conform/XPG42/ndbm.h/linknamespace
>> UNSUPPORTED: crypt/cert
>> FAIL: elf/check-abi-libc
>> UNSUPPORTED: elf/tst-env-setuid
>> UNSUPPORTED: elf/tst-env-setuid-tunables
>> XPASS: elf/tst-protected1a
>> XPASS: elf/tst-protected1b
>> UNSUPPORTED: elf/tst-valgrind-smoke
>> UNSUPPORTED: misc/tst-adjtimex
>> UNSUPPORTED: misc/tst-clock_adjtime
>> UNSUPPORTED: misc/tst-ntp_adjtime
>> UNSUPPORTED: misc/tst-pkey
>> UNSUPPORTED: misc/tst-rseq
>> UNSUPPORTED: misc/tst-rseq-disable
>> UNSUPPORTED: nptl/test-cond-printers
>> UNSUPPORTED: nptl/test-condattr-printers
>> UNSUPPORTED: nptl/test-mutex-printers
>> UNSUPPORTED: nptl/test-mutexattr-printers
>> UNSUPPORTED: nptl/test-rwlock-printers
>> UNSUPPORTED: nptl/test-rwlockattr-printers
>> UNSUPPORTED: nptl/tst-pthread-gdb-attach
>> UNSUPPORTED: nptl/tst-pthread-gdb-attach-static
>> UNSUPPORTED: nptl/tst-rseq-nptl
>> UNSUPPORTED: stdlib/tst-secure-getenv
>> UNSUPPORTED: time/tst-clock_settime
>> UNSUPPORTED: time/tst-settimeofday
>> Summary of test results:
>>        1 FAIL
>>     4576 PASS
>>       22 UNSUPPORTED
>>       12 XFAIL
>>        6 XPASS
> Overall this is looking good. Thanks for your testing.