From: Ken M. <zar...@nt...> - 2020-05-24 05:46:07
|
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 09:48:34PM -0700, chr...@ma... wrote: > I sent this already, but now I'm resending from an address already > subscribed to the mailing list. > Yeah, lists can be fun - that bit me too. > Hi, > > Thanks for posting full logs. > > The following excerpts look like unexpected failures to me. I think it's > some problem with forks and signals. However, it's been a while since I've > looked at things closely, so don't take my word for it. > > Chris > > check_check.log > --------------- > Running suite(s): Fix Sub > 0%: Checks: 1, Failures: 1, Errors: 0 > check_check_fixture.c:36:S:Fix Sub:unchecked_setup:0: Test failure in > fixture > > check.c:586: Bad status in set_fork_status > Check Servant2 > > check_check_fixture.c:336:F:Core:test_ch_setup_sig:0: SRunner stat string > incorrect with checked setup signal > Before I posted, I'd already tried with --disable-fork (no failures, but obviously a lot fewer tests were actually run) and I didn't get those messages. But I'm at a loss about how to determine what is causing them. It looks as if Check Servant2 19%: Checks: 260, Failures: 167, Errors: 43 means there were 43 unexpected errors, but deciphering testsuites seems to be an art which I have not acquired. The suites for different packages are all pretty different from each other - unless an individual test reports an obvious error where I can see how the expected result differs from what actually happened, and ideally get some error message along the way, then it might as well all be written in a language I can't read. Thanks anyway. ĸen -- Remembering The People's Republic of Treacle Mine Road. Truth! Justice! Freedom! Reasonably priced Love! And a Hard-boiled Egg! |