|
From: Carl L. <ce...@us...> - 2023-04-17 16:22:39
|
Mark: On Sat, 2023-04-15 at 04:06 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > An RC1 tarball for 3.21.0 is now available at > https://sourceware.org/pub/valgrind/valgrind-3.21.0.RC1.tar.bz2 > I have tried the tar ball on a couple of different Power 10 systems, Power 9 and Power 8. The results on the first Power 10 box with Red Hat Enterprise Linux release 9.0 (Plow) look fine: == 708 tests, 2 stderr failures, 0 stdout failures, 1 stderrB failure, 0 stdout\ B failures, 2 post failures == gdbserver_tests/hginfo (stderrB) memcheck/tests/bug340392 (stderr) memcheck/tests/linux/rfcomm (stderr) massif/tests/new-cpp (post) massif/tests/overloaded-new (post) The results on the second Power 10 with Fedora release 36 (Thirty Six) look a little strange: == 709 tests, 2 stderr failures, 2 stdout failures, 1 stderrB failure, 0 stdout\ B failures, 2 post failures == gdbserver_tests/hginfo (stderrB) memcheck/tests/bug340392 (stderr) memcheck/tests/linux/rfcomm (stderr) massif/tests/new-cpp (post) massif/tests/overloaded-new (post) none/tests/ppc64/test_isa_3_1_R1_RT (stdout) none/tests/ppc64/test_isa_3_1_R1_XT (stdout) The test_isa_3_1_R1_RT and test_isa_3_1_R1_XT tests seem to run differently then expected. The tests generate multiple lines of output when only one line was expected. For example: plfd 0_R1 =>_ -4.903986e+55 _ cb80000006100000, 0 +plfd 0_R1 =>_ -4.903986e+55 _ cb80000006100000, 0 +plfd 0_R1 =>_ -4.903986e+55 _ cb80000006100000, 0 ... (cut about 250 lines) +plfd 0_R1 =>_ -4.903986e+55 _ cb80000006100000, 0 There seem to be about 250 more copies of the output line then expected. This happens on a number of different instructions. The outputs are all identical, just more lines then expected. It appears to be a difference in how the test program runs, not in the resultgenerated by Valgrind. The output on Power 9, with Ubuntu 20.04.5 LTS == 700 tests, 4 stderr failures, 0 stdout failures, 13 stderrB failures, 0 stdoutB failures, 8 post failures == gdbserver_tests/hginfo (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/mcblocklistsearch (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/mcbreak (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/mcclean_after_fork (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/mcinfcallWSRU (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/mcleak (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/mcmain_pic (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/mcvabits (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/mssnapshot (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/nlgone_abrt (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/nlgone_exit (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/nlgone_return (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/nlpasssigalrm (stderrB) memcheck/tests/bug340392 (stderr) memcheck/tests/leak_cpp_interior (stderr) memcheck/tests/linux/rfcomm (stderr) memcheck/tests/linux/sys-execveat (stderr) massif/tests/new-cpp (post) massif/tests/overloaded-new (post) The output for Power 8, Ubuntu 20.04.5 LTS == 696 tests, 4 stderr failures, 0 stdout failures, 13 stderrB failures, 0 stdoutB failures, 8 post failures == gdbserver_tests/hginfo (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/mcblocklistsearch (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/mcbreak (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/mcclean_after_fork (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/mcinfcallWSRU (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/mcleak (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/mcmain_pic (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/mcvabits (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/mssnapshot (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/nlgone_abrt (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/nlgone_exit (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/nlgone_return (stderrB) gdbserver_tests/nlpasssigalrm (stderrB) memcheck/tests/bug340392 (stderr) memcheck/tests/leak_cpp_interior (stderr) memcheck/tests/linux/rfcomm (stderr) memcheck/tests/linux/sys-execveat (stderr) massif/tests/new-cpp (post) massif/tests/overloaded-new (post) The Power 8 and 9 results are the same. They both have the same distro. The gdbserver tests can be a bit touchy if the versions are not a perfect match. I would expect that is the cause of the gdbserver failures. I haven't looked to see what the issue is with memcheck and massif but it is probably distro related. Not really that concerned about the results on Power 8 and 9. I will look into why the results are different on the Power 10 systems. As said, the results appear to be a test program issue not an issue with Valgrind itself. I would not hold up the release for this test failure. The RC1 release looks good to me on PowerPC. Carl |