|
From: Tom H. <th...@cy...> - 2008-02-15 05:04:19
|
Nightly build on alvis ( i686, Red Hat 7.3 ) started at 2008-02-15 03:15:05 GMT Results unchanged from 24 hours ago Checking out valgrind source tree ... done Configuring valgrind ... done Building valgrind ... done Running regression tests ... failed Regression test results follow == 338 tests, 83 stderr failures, 1 stdout failure, 29 post failures == memcheck/tests/addressable (stderr) memcheck/tests/badjump (stderr) memcheck/tests/describe-block (stderr) memcheck/tests/erringfds (stderr) memcheck/tests/leak-0 (stderr) memcheck/tests/leak-cycle (stderr) memcheck/tests/leak-pool-0 (stderr) memcheck/tests/leak-pool-1 (stderr) memcheck/tests/leak-pool-2 (stderr) memcheck/tests/leak-pool-3 (stderr) memcheck/tests/leak-pool-4 (stderr) memcheck/tests/leak-pool-5 (stderr) memcheck/tests/leak-regroot (stderr) memcheck/tests/leak-tree (stderr) memcheck/tests/long_namespace_xml (stderr) memcheck/tests/lsframe1 (stderr) memcheck/tests/lsframe2 (stderr) memcheck/tests/malloc_free_fill (stderr) memcheck/tests/match-overrun (stderr) memcheck/tests/noisy_child (stderr) memcheck/tests/partial_load_dflt (stderr) memcheck/tests/partial_load_ok (stderr) memcheck/tests/partiallydefinedeq (stderr) memcheck/tests/pointer-trace (stderr) memcheck/tests/sigkill (stderr) memcheck/tests/stack_changes (stderr) memcheck/tests/x86/bug152022 (stderr) memcheck/tests/x86/scalar (stderr) memcheck/tests/x86/scalar_supp (stderr) memcheck/tests/x86/xor-undef-x86 (stderr) memcheck/tests/xml1 (stderr) massif/tests/alloc-fns-A (post) massif/tests/alloc-fns-B (post) massif/tests/basic (post) massif/tests/basic2 (post) massif/tests/big-alloc (post) massif/tests/culling1 (stderr) massif/tests/culling2 (stderr) massif/tests/custom_alloc (post) massif/tests/deep-A (post) massif/tests/deep-B (stderr) massif/tests/deep-B (post) massif/tests/deep-C (stderr) massif/tests/deep-C (post) massif/tests/deep-D (post) massif/tests/ignoring (post) massif/tests/insig (post) massif/tests/long-names (post) massif/tests/long-time (post) massif/tests/new-cpp (post) massif/tests/null (post) massif/tests/one (post) massif/tests/overloaded-new (post) massif/tests/peak (post) massif/tests/peak2 (stderr) massif/tests/peak2 (post) massif/tests/realloc (stderr) massif/tests/realloc (post) massif/tests/thresholds_0_0 (post) massif/tests/thresholds_0_10 (post) massif/tests/thresholds_10_0 (post) massif/tests/thresholds_10_10 (post) massif/tests/thresholds_5_0 (post) massif/tests/thresholds_5_10 (post) massif/tests/zero1 (post) massif/tests/zero2 (post) none/tests/blockfault (stderr) none/tests/mremap (stderr) none/tests/mremap2 (stdout) helgrind/tests/hg01_all_ok (stderr) helgrind/tests/hg02_deadlock (stderr) helgrind/tests/hg03_inherit (stderr) helgrind/tests/hg04_race (stderr) helgrind/tests/hg05_race2 (stderr) helgrind/tests/hg06_readshared (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc01_simple_race (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc02_simple_tls (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc03_re_excl (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc04_free_lock (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc05_simple_race (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc06_two_races (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc07_hbl1 (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc08_hbl2 (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc09_bad_unlock (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc10_rec_lock (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc11_XCHG (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc12_rwl_trivial (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc13_laog1 (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc14_laog_dinphils (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc16_byterace (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc17_sembar (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc18_semabuse (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc19_shadowmem (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc20_verifywrap (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc21_pthonce (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc22_exit_w_lock (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc23_bogus_condwait (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc24_nonzero_sem (stderr) exp-drd/tests/fp_race (stderr) exp-drd/tests/fp_race2 (stderr) exp-drd/tests/matinv (stderr) exp-drd/tests/pth_barrier (stderr) exp-drd/tests/pth_broadcast (stderr) exp-drd/tests/pth_cond_race (stderr) exp-drd/tests/pth_cond_race2 (stderr) exp-drd/tests/pth_create_chain (stderr) exp-drd/tests/pth_detached (stderr) exp-drd/tests/pth_detached2 (stderr) exp-drd/tests/sem_as_mutex (stderr) exp-drd/tests/sem_as_mutex2 (stderr) exp-drd/tests/sigalrm (stderr) exp-drd/tests/tc17_sembar (stderr) exp-drd/tests/tc18_semabuse (stderr) |
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@cs...> - 2008-02-15 09:47:39
|
Is it worth retiring this machine from the nightly tests? It does an extra malloc() call for every program for some unknown reason, I think this is why so many tests fail. Nick On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Tom Hughes wrote: > > Nightly build on alvis ( i686, Red Hat 7.3 ) started at 2008-02-15 03:15:05 GMT > Results unchanged from 24 hours ago > > Checking out valgrind source tree ... done > Configuring valgrind ... done > Building valgrind ... done > Running regression tests ... failed > > Regression test results follow > > == 338 tests, 83 stderr failures, 1 stdout failure, 29 post failures == > memcheck/tests/addressable (stderr) > memcheck/tests/badjump (stderr) > memcheck/tests/describe-block (stderr) > memcheck/tests/erringfds (stderr) > memcheck/tests/leak-0 (stderr) > memcheck/tests/leak-cycle (stderr) > memcheck/tests/leak-pool-0 (stderr) > memcheck/tests/leak-pool-1 (stderr) > memcheck/tests/leak-pool-2 (stderr) > memcheck/tests/leak-pool-3 (stderr) > memcheck/tests/leak-pool-4 (stderr) > memcheck/tests/leak-pool-5 (stderr) > memcheck/tests/leak-regroot (stderr) > memcheck/tests/leak-tree (stderr) > memcheck/tests/long_namespace_xml (stderr) > memcheck/tests/lsframe1 (stderr) > memcheck/tests/lsframe2 (stderr) > memcheck/tests/malloc_free_fill (stderr) > memcheck/tests/match-overrun (stderr) > memcheck/tests/noisy_child (stderr) > memcheck/tests/partial_load_dflt (stderr) > memcheck/tests/partial_load_ok (stderr) > memcheck/tests/partiallydefinedeq (stderr) > memcheck/tests/pointer-trace (stderr) > memcheck/tests/sigkill (stderr) > memcheck/tests/stack_changes (stderr) > memcheck/tests/x86/bug152022 (stderr) > memcheck/tests/x86/scalar (stderr) > memcheck/tests/x86/scalar_supp (stderr) > memcheck/tests/x86/xor-undef-x86 (stderr) > memcheck/tests/xml1 (stderr) > massif/tests/alloc-fns-A (post) > massif/tests/alloc-fns-B (post) > massif/tests/basic (post) > massif/tests/basic2 (post) > massif/tests/big-alloc (post) > massif/tests/culling1 (stderr) > massif/tests/culling2 (stderr) > massif/tests/custom_alloc (post) > massif/tests/deep-A (post) > massif/tests/deep-B (stderr) > massif/tests/deep-B (post) > massif/tests/deep-C (stderr) > massif/tests/deep-C (post) > massif/tests/deep-D (post) > massif/tests/ignoring (post) > massif/tests/insig (post) > massif/tests/long-names (post) > massif/tests/long-time (post) > massif/tests/new-cpp (post) > massif/tests/null (post) > massif/tests/one (post) > massif/tests/overloaded-new (post) > massif/tests/peak (post) > massif/tests/peak2 (stderr) > massif/tests/peak2 (post) > massif/tests/realloc (stderr) > massif/tests/realloc (post) > massif/tests/thresholds_0_0 (post) > massif/tests/thresholds_0_10 (post) > massif/tests/thresholds_10_0 (post) > massif/tests/thresholds_10_10 (post) > massif/tests/thresholds_5_0 (post) > massif/tests/thresholds_5_10 (post) > massif/tests/zero1 (post) > massif/tests/zero2 (post) > none/tests/blockfault (stderr) > none/tests/mremap (stderr) > none/tests/mremap2 (stdout) > helgrind/tests/hg01_all_ok (stderr) > helgrind/tests/hg02_deadlock (stderr) > helgrind/tests/hg03_inherit (stderr) > helgrind/tests/hg04_race (stderr) > helgrind/tests/hg05_race2 (stderr) > helgrind/tests/hg06_readshared (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc01_simple_race (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc02_simple_tls (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc03_re_excl (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc04_free_lock (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc05_simple_race (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc06_two_races (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc07_hbl1 (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc08_hbl2 (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc09_bad_unlock (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc10_rec_lock (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc11_XCHG (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc12_rwl_trivial (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc13_laog1 (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc14_laog_dinphils (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc16_byterace (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc17_sembar (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc18_semabuse (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc19_shadowmem (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc20_verifywrap (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc21_pthonce (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc22_exit_w_lock (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc23_bogus_condwait (stderr) > helgrind/tests/tc24_nonzero_sem (stderr) > exp-drd/tests/fp_race (stderr) > exp-drd/tests/fp_race2 (stderr) > exp-drd/tests/matinv (stderr) > exp-drd/tests/pth_barrier (stderr) > exp-drd/tests/pth_broadcast (stderr) > exp-drd/tests/pth_cond_race (stderr) > exp-drd/tests/pth_cond_race2 (stderr) > exp-drd/tests/pth_create_chain (stderr) > exp-drd/tests/pth_detached (stderr) > exp-drd/tests/pth_detached2 (stderr) > exp-drd/tests/sem_as_mutex (stderr) > exp-drd/tests/sem_as_mutex2 (stderr) > exp-drd/tests/sigalrm (stderr) > exp-drd/tests/tc17_sembar (stderr) > exp-drd/tests/tc18_semabuse (stderr) > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Valgrind-developers mailing list > Val...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-developers > |
|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2008-02-15 18:52:14
|
On Friday 15 February 2008 10:47, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > Is it worth retiring this machine from the nightly tests? It does an extra > malloc() call for every program for some unknown reason, I think this is > why so many tests fail. > [...] > > Nightly build on alvis ( i686, Red Hat 7.3 ) started at 2008-02-15 > [...] > > == 338 tests, 83 stderr failures, 1 stdout failure, 29 post failures == A related question is: what is the oldest system that we should attempt to support? I'd tried to ensure V continues to build and be usable on a vanilla Red Hat 7.3 (+ gcc 2.96) system, and that's mostly viable with the profilers and Memcheck, but for the threading tools it's pretty pointless as neither DRD nor Helgrind work reasonably with LinuxThreads. I'm inclined to say: continue ensuring the 3.3.X branch works with Red Hat 7.3, but change the baseline requirements for the trunk (hence for >= 3.4.0) to something more modern: drop LinuxThreads support, and require gcc >= 3.0. So what's the oldest commonly-used distro that supported NPTL? J |
|
From: Bart V. A. <bar...@gm...> - 2008-02-17 09:30:00
|
On Feb 15, 2008 7:49 PM, Julian Seward <js...@ac...> wrote: > A related question is: what is the oldest system that we should > attempt to support? I'd tried to ensure V continues to build and > be usable on a vanilla Red Hat 7.3 (+ gcc 2.96) system, and that's > mostly viable with the profilers and Memcheck, but for the > threading tools it's pretty pointless as neither DRD nor Helgrind > work reasonably with LinuxThreads. Maybe it's a good idea to leave out DRD and Helgrind from the build and from the regression tests on LinuxThreads systems. I can write a configure test to detect LinuxThreads if needed. Bart. |
|
From: Tom H. <to...@co...> - 2008-02-15 19:54:30
|
In message <200...@ac...>
Julian Seward <js...@ac...> wrote:
> On Friday 15 February 2008 10:47, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> > Is it worth retiring this machine from the nightly tests? It does an extra
> > malloc() call for every program for some unknown reason, I think this is
> > why so many tests fail.
> > [...]
> > > Nightly build on alvis ( i686, Red Hat 7.3 ) started at 2008-02-15
> > [...]
> > > == 338 tests, 83 stderr failures, 1 stdout failure, 29 post failures ==
>
> A related question is: what is the oldest system that we should
> attempt to support? I'd tried to ensure V continues to build and
> be usable on a vanilla Red Hat 7.3 (+ gcc 2.96) system, and that's
> mostly viable with the profilers and Memcheck, but for the
> threading tools it's pretty pointless as neither DRD nor Helgrind
> work reasonably with LinuxThreads.
That machine is actually using gcc 3.2.2 now, and not the original
gcc 2.96 that RH7.3 shipped with.
> I'm inclined to say: continue ensuring the 3.3.X branch works with
> Red Hat 7.3, but change the baseline requirements for the trunk
> (hence for >= 3.4.0) to something more modern: drop LinuxThreads
> support, and require gcc >= 3.0.
>
> So what's the oldest commonly-used distro that supported NPTL?
RH9 is pretty much the first distro to support it isn't it?
It didn't really go mainstream until the 2.6 kernel, which was
with FC2 in Fedora IIRC.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (to...@co...)
http://www.compton.nu/
|
|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2008-02-17 12:09:40
|
> > So what's the oldest commonly-used distro that supported NPTL? > > RH9 is pretty much the first distro to support it isn't it? Yes. According to Ulrich Drepper "RHL9 was the first with NPTL and it served as the basis for RHEL3". So I'm inclined to declare RHL9 as the new oldest-supported-distro for the trunk, which means we can drop support for LinuxThreads, gcc < 3.0, and stabs. J |
|
From: Peter A J. <pj...@lu...> - 2008-02-17 15:42:06
|
> So I'm inclined to declare RHL9 as the new oldest-supported-distro > for the trunk, which means we can drop support for LinuxThreads, > gcc < 3.0, and stabs. The stabs support might be useful for other compilers, pcc only supports stabs for example. Regards, Peter |
|
From: Bart V. A. <bar...@gm...> - 2008-02-24 19:15:10
|
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Julian Seward <js...@ac...> wrote: > > > So what's the oldest commonly-used distro that supported NPTL? > > > > RH9 is pretty much the first distro to support it isn't it? > > Yes. According to Ulrich Drepper "RHL9 was the first with NPTL and > it served as the basis for RHEL3". > > So I'm inclined to declare RHL9 as the new oldest-supported-distro > for the trunk, which means we can drop support for LinuxThreads, > gcc < 3.0, and stabs. As far as I know there are still RHEL3 setups running, and RHEL3 is based on the 2.4.21 Linux kernel. So how could RHEL3 include NPTL ? The kernel version included in RHEL3 can be verified easily: as known the CentOS RPM's package the same software versions as the equivalent RHEL version. It can be verified on any CentOS mirror that version CentOS 3.0 includes kernel 2.4.21. See e.g. ftp://ftp.belnet.be/mirror/ftp.centos.org/3/os/i386/RedHat/RPMS. Bart. |
|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2008-02-24 19:30:39
|
On Sunday 24 February 2008 20:15, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Julian Seward <js...@ac...> wrote: > > > > So what's the oldest commonly-used distro that supported NPTL? > > > > > > RH9 is pretty much the first distro to support it isn't it? > > > > Yes. According to Ulrich Drepper "RHL9 was the first with NPTL and > > it served as the basis for RHEL3". > > > > So I'm inclined to declare RHL9 as the new oldest-supported-distro > > for the trunk, which means we can drop support for LinuxThreads, > > gcc < 3.0, and stabs. > > As far as I know there are still RHEL3 setups running, and RHEL3 is > based on the 2.4.21 Linux kernel. So how could RHEL3 include NPTL ? Because the Red Hat crew backported a bunch of stuff from 2.6 into some of the 2.4s they were distributing, and I think that included NPTL. At least -- that is my impression. J |
|
From: Tom H. <to...@co...> - 2008-02-24 21:02:13
|
In message <200...@ac...>
Julian Seward <js...@ac...> wrote:
> On Sunday 24 February 2008 20:15, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Julian Seward <js...@ac...> wrote:
> > > > > So what's the oldest commonly-used distro that supported NPTL?
> > > >
> > > > RH9 is pretty much the first distro to support it isn't it?
> > >
> > > Yes. According to Ulrich Drepper "RHL9 was the first with NPTL and
> > > it served as the basis for RHEL3".
> > >
> > > So I'm inclined to declare RHL9 as the new oldest-supported-distro
> > > for the trunk, which means we can drop support for LinuxThreads,
> > > gcc < 3.0, and stabs.
> >
> > As far as I know there are still RHEL3 setups running, and RHEL3 is
> > based on the 2.4.21 Linux kernel. So how could RHEL3 include NPTL ?
>
> Because the Red Hat crew backported a bunch of stuff from 2.6 into some
> of the 2.4s they were distributing, and I think that included NPTL. At
> least -- that is my impression.
Correct - the same applies to RH9 (and FC1) as both use a 2.4 kernel.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (to...@co...)
http://www.compton.nu/
|