|
From: Tom H. <to...@co...> - 2005-09-30 02:40:33
|
Nightly build on dunsmere ( athlon, Fedora Core 4 ) started at 2005-09-30 03:30:04 BST Results differ from 24 hours ago Checking out valgrind source tree ... done Configuring valgrind ... done Building valgrind ... done Running regression tests ... failed Regression test results follow == 188 tests, 9 stderr failures, 2 stdout failures ================= memcheck/tests/leak-tree (stderr) memcheck/tests/leakotron (stdout) memcheck/tests/mempool (stderr) memcheck/tests/pointer-trace (stderr) memcheck/tests/weirdioctl (stderr) memcheck/tests/x86/scalar (stderr) memcheck/tests/xml1 (stderr) none/tests/faultstatus (stderr) none/tests/x86/badseg (stdout) none/tests/x86/badseg (stderr) none/tests/x86/int (stderr) ================================================= == Results from 24 hours ago == ================================================= Checking out valgrind source tree ... done Configuring valgrind ... done Building valgrind ... done Running regression tests ... failed Regression test results follow == 188 tests, 8 stderr failures, 0 stdout failures ================= memcheck/tests/leak-tree (stderr) memcheck/tests/mempool (stderr) memcheck/tests/pointer-trace (stderr) memcheck/tests/weirdioctl (stderr) memcheck/tests/x86/scalar (stderr) memcheck/tests/xml1 (stderr) none/tests/faultstatus (stderr) none/tests/x86/int (stderr) ================================================= == Difference between 24 hours ago and now == ================================================= *** old.short Fri Sep 30 03:35:19 2005 --- new.short Fri Sep 30 03:40:29 2005 *************** *** 8,11 **** ! == 188 tests, 8 stderr failures, 0 stdout failures ================= memcheck/tests/leak-tree (stderr) memcheck/tests/mempool (stderr) --- 8,12 ---- ! == 188 tests, 9 stderr failures, 2 stdout failures ================= memcheck/tests/leak-tree (stderr) + memcheck/tests/leakotron (stdout) memcheck/tests/mempool (stderr) *************** *** 16,17 **** --- 17,20 ---- none/tests/faultstatus (stderr) + none/tests/x86/badseg (stdout) + none/tests/x86/badseg (stderr) none/tests/x86/int (stderr) |
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@cs...> - 2005-09-30 14:34:38
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Tom Hughes wrote: > ! == 188 tests, 9 stderr failures, 2 stdout failures ================= > memcheck/tests/leak-tree (stderr) > + memcheck/tests/leakotron (stdout) > memcheck/tests/mempool (stderr) > *************** > *** 16,17 **** > --- 17,20 ---- > none/tests/faultstatus (stderr) > + none/tests/x86/badseg (stdout) > + none/tests/x86/badseg (stderr) > none/tests/x86/int (stderr) Any ideas what caused these? Nick |
|
From: Tom H. <to...@co...> - 2005-09-30 14:46:52
|
In message <Pin...@ch...>
Nicholas Nethercote <nj...@cs...> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
>> ! == 188 tests, 9 stderr failures, 2 stdout failures =================
>> memcheck/tests/leak-tree (stderr)
>> + memcheck/tests/leakotron (stdout)
>> memcheck/tests/mempool (stderr)
>> ***************
>> *** 16,17 ****
>> --- 17,20 ----
>> none/tests/faultstatus (stderr)
>> + none/tests/x86/badseg (stdout)
>> + none/tests/x86/badseg (stderr)
>> none/tests/x86/int (stderr)
>
> Any ideas what caused these?
No - they don't seem to be failing in current builds on that machine.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (to...@co...)
http://www.compton.nu/
|
|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2005-09-30 15:12:16
|
On Friday 30 September 2005 15:46, Tom Hughes wrote: > In message <Pin...@ch...> > > Nicholas Nethercote <nj...@cs...> wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Tom Hughes wrote: > >> ! == 188 tests, 9 stderr failures, 2 stdout failures ================= > >> memcheck/tests/leak-tree (stderr) > >> + memcheck/tests/leakotron (stdout) > >> memcheck/tests/mempool (stderr) > >> *************** > >> *** 16,17 **** > >> --- 17,20 ---- > >> none/tests/faultstatus (stderr) > >> + none/tests/x86/badseg (stdout) > >> + none/tests/x86/badseg (stderr) > >> none/tests/x86/int (stderr) > > > > Any ideas what caused these? > > No - they don't seem to be failing in current builds on that machine. Ah well, let's see what happens tonight. Interestingly this is the first time the new regtest-diff-er really drew itself to my attention. So to speak. J |
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@cs...> - 2005-09-30 15:20:24
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Julian Seward wrote: > Interestingly this is the first time the new regtest-diff-er really drew > itself to my attention. So to speak. I think the diff should go first for this reason. N |