|
From: Tom H. <th...@cy...> - 2005-11-09 03:22:45
|
Nightly build on ginetta ( i686, Red Hat 8.0 ) started at 2005-11-09 03:10:14 GMT
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
== 202 tests, 4 stderr failures, 2 stdout failures =================
memcheck/tests/mempool (stderr)
memcheck/tests/pointer-trace (stderr)
none/tests/x86/faultstatus (stderr)
none/tests/x86/int (stderr)
none/tests/x86/seg_override (stdout)
none/tests/x86/yield (stdout)
=================================================
== Results from 24 hours ago ==
=================================================
Checking out valgrind source tree ... done
Configuring valgrind ... done
Building valgrind ... failed
Last 20 lines of verbose log follow echo
launcher.c: In function `main':
launcher.c:201: `debugLog_startup' undeclared (first use in this function)
launcher.c:201: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
launcher.c:201: for each function it appears in.)
launcher.c:201: called object is not a function
launcher.c:205: `debugLog' undeclared (first use in this function)
launcher.c:205: called object is not a function
launcher.c:208: called object is not a function
launcher.c:214: `VG_PLATFORM' undeclared (first use in this function)
launcher.c:214: called object is not a function
launcher.c:217: called object is not a function
launcher.c:219: called object is not a function
launcher.c:271: called object is not a function
make[3]: *** [launcher.o] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory `/tmp/valgrind.14411/valgrind/coregrind'
make[2]: *** [all] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/valgrind.14411/valgrind/coregrind'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/valgrind.14411/valgrind'
make: *** [all] Error 2
=================================================
== Difference between 24 hours ago and now ==
=================================================
*** old.short Wed Nov 9 03:15:16 2005
--- new.short Wed Nov 9 03:22:40 2005
***************
*** 3,26 ****
Configuring valgrind ... done
! Building valgrind ... failed
- Last 20 lines of verbose log follow echo
- launcher.c: In function `main':
- launcher.c:201: `debugLog_startup' undeclared (first use in this function)
- launcher.c:201: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
- launcher.c:201: for each function it appears in.)
- launcher.c:201: called object is not a function
- launcher.c:205: `debugLog' undeclared (first use in this function)
- launcher.c:205: called object is not a function
- launcher.c:208: called object is not a function
- launcher.c:214: `VG_PLATFORM' undeclared (first use in this function)
- launcher.c:214: called object is not a function
- launcher.c:217: called object is not a function
- launcher.c:219: called object is not a function
- launcher.c:271: called object is not a function
- make[3]: *** [launcher.o] Error 1
- make[3]: Leaving directory `/tmp/valgrind.14411/valgrind/coregrind'
- make[2]: *** [all] Error 2
- make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/valgrind.14411/valgrind/coregrind'
- make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
- make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/valgrind.14411/valgrind'
- make: *** [all] Error 2
--- 3,16 ----
Configuring valgrind ... done
! Building valgrind ... done
! Running regression tests ... failed
!
! Regression test results follow
!
! == 202 tests, 4 stderr failures, 2 stdout failures =================
! memcheck/tests/mempool (stderr)
! memcheck/tests/pointer-trace (stderr)
! none/tests/x86/faultstatus (stderr)
! none/tests/x86/int (stderr)
! none/tests/x86/seg_override (stdout)
! none/tests/x86/yield (stdout)
|
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@cs...> - 2005-11-09 04:49:15
|
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Tom Hughes wrote: > none/tests/x86/seg_override (stdout) I see this also. The diff is: *** seg_override.stdout.exp Tue Nov 1 13:47:12 2005 --- seg_override.stdout.out Tue Nov 8 22:46:09 2005 *************** *** 2 **** ! got 512 bytes --- 2 ---- ! got 65536 bytes Julian, is this due to your change of emulating the entire LDT (GDT?) table rather than just the first few entries? Nick |
|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2005-11-09 05:15:02
|
> *** seg_override.stdout.exp Tue Nov 1 13:47:12 2005 > --- seg_override.stdout.out Tue Nov 8 22:46:09 2005 > *************** > *** 2 **** > ! got 512 bytes > --- 2 ---- > ! got 65536 bytes > > > Julian, is this due to your change of emulating the entire LDT (GDT?) > table rather than just the first few entries? Oh, yes it is. Sorry. So 65536 is now correct. J |