* guile-2.0.1 on 64-bit PowerPC Gentoo Linux: one test failure
@ 2011-04-28 18:39 Nelson H. F. Beebe
2011-05-04 8:24 ` Marijn
2011-05-06 7:57 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Nelson H. F. Beebe @ 2011-04-28 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bug-guile; +Cc: beebe
I've just done two builds of guile-2.0.1 on 64-bit PowerPC Gentoo
Linux with differing choices of PATH. Here are the settings for one
of them:
% cat /etc/gentoo-release
Gentoo Base System release 1.12.14
% gcc --version
gcc (Gentoo 4.4.5 p1.2, pie-0.4.5) 4.4.5
PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin
LDFLAGS='-Wl,-rpath,/lib -L/lib -Wl,-rpath,/usr/lib -L/usr/lib -Wl,-rpath,/usr/local/lib -L/usr/local/lib'
LIBS=-lgc
The builds are successful, but there is a single test failure:
PASS: test-asmobs
bad return from expression `(f-s8-)': expected -100; got -1
bad return from expression `(f-u8-)': expected 200; got 0
bad return from expression `(f-s16-)': expected -20000; got -1
bad return from expression `(f-u16-)': expected 40000; got 0
bad return from expression `(f-s32-)': expected -2000000000; got -1
bad return from expression `(f-u32-)': expected 4000000000; got 0
bad return from expression `(f-s8-u8 10)': expected -90; got -1
bad return from expression `(f-u8-u8 10)': expected 210; got 0
bad return from expression `(f-s16-u8 10)': expected -19990; got -1
bad return from expression `(f-u16-u8 10)': expected 40010; got 0
bad return from expression `(f-s32-u8 10)': expected -1999999990; got -1
bad return from expression `(f-u32-u8 10)': expected 4000000010; got 0
bad return from expression `(f-s8-s64 10)': expected -90; got -1
bad return from expression `(f-u8-s64 10)': expected 210; got 0
bad return from expression `(f-s16-s64 10)': expected -19990; got -1
bad return from expression `(f-u16-s64 10)': expected 40010; got 0
bad return from expression `(f-s32-s64 10)': expected -1999999990; got -1
bad return from expression `(f-u32-s64 10)': expected 4000000010; got 0
Backtrace:
In module/ice-9/boot-9.scm:
170: 9 [catch #t #<catch-closure 3ab03240> ...]
In unknown file:
?: 8 [catch-closure]
In module/ice-9/boot-9.scm:
62: 7 [call-with-prompt prompt0 ...]
In module/ice-9/eval.scm:
389: 6 [eval # #]
In module/ice-9/boot-9.scm:
1918: 5 [save-module-excursion #<procedure 3aaba380 at
module/ice-9/boot-9.scm:3341:3 ()>]
3346: 4 [#<procedure 3aaba380 at module/ice-9/boot-9.scm:3341:3 ()>]
1190: 3 [%start-stack load-stack ...]
1195: 2 [#<procedure 3ab2cb70 ()>]
In unknown file:
?: 1 [primitive-load
"/local/build/bare/guile-2.0.1/test-suite/standalone/test-ffi"]
?: 0 [scm-error misc-error #f ...]
ERROR: In procedure scm-error:
ERROR: incorrect result (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0)
FAIL: test-ffi
...
==================================
1 of 23 tests failed
(1 test was not run)
Please report to bug-guile@gnu.org
==================================
I have a recent installation of -lffi:
% ls -log /usr/local/lib/libffi*
-rw-r--r-- 1 202394 Feb 18 15:52 /usr/local/lib/libffi.a
-rwxr-xr-x 1 925 Feb 18 15:52 /usr/local/lib/libffi.la
lrwxrwxrwx 1 15 Feb 18 15:52 /usr/local/lib/libffi.so -> libffi.so.6.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 15 Feb 18 15:52 /usr/local/lib/libffi.so.6 -> libffi.so.6.0.0
-rwxr-xr-x 1 147113 Feb 18 15:52 /usr/local/lib/libffi.so.6.0.0
/usr/local/lib/libffi-3.0.10rc5:
total 4
drwxrwxr-x 2 4096 Feb 18 15:52 include
Any ideas for debugging the test failure?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Nelson H. F. Beebe Tel: +1 801 581 5254 -
- University of Utah FAX: +1 801 581 4148 -
- Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB Internet e-mail: beebe@math.utah.edu -
- 155 S 1400 E RM 233 beebe@acm.org beebe@computer.org -
- Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: guile-2.0.1 on 64-bit PowerPC Gentoo Linux: one test failure
2011-04-28 18:39 guile-2.0.1 on 64-bit PowerPC Gentoo Linux: one test failure Nelson H. F. Beebe
@ 2011-05-04 8:24 ` Marijn
2011-05-06 7:57 ` Ludovic Courtès
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Marijn @ 2011-05-04 8:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nelson H. F. Beebe; +Cc: bug-guile
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Nelson,
On 04/28/11 20:39, Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote:
[snip]
> I have a recent installation of -lffi:
>
> % ls -log /usr/local/lib/libffi*
> -rw-r--r-- 1 202394 Feb 18 15:52 /usr/local/lib/libffi.a
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 925 Feb 18 15:52 /usr/local/lib/libffi.la
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 15 Feb 18 15:52 /usr/local/lib/libffi.so -> libffi.so.6.0.0
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 15 Feb 18 15:52 /usr/local/lib/libffi.so.6 -> libffi.so.6.0.0
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 147113 Feb 18 15:52 /usr/local/lib/libffi.so.6.0.0
>
> /usr/local/lib/libffi-3.0.10rc5:
> total 4
> drwxrwxr-x 2 4096 Feb 18 15:52 include
>
> Any ideas for debugging the test failure?
You say your libffi is recent, but it is not the most recent, so maybe
try 3.0.10_rc8 (which is already in the Gentoo main tree)?
Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk3BDSMACgkQp/VmCx0OL2zXKACeImbIZ8om/EVfwiqpocvvOhZ4
tkgAoLw+/Dbho4dkAxp4/3lXkp4VPJ8T
=RzEP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: guile-2.0.1 on 64-bit PowerPC Gentoo Linux: one test failure
2011-04-28 18:39 guile-2.0.1 on 64-bit PowerPC Gentoo Linux: one test failure Nelson H. F. Beebe
2011-05-04 8:24 ` Marijn
@ 2011-05-06 7:57 ` Ludovic Courtès
2011-05-08 15:27 ` Ludovic Courtès
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2011-05-06 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nelson H. F. Beebe; +Cc: bug-guile
Hi Nelson,
Thanks for your report!
"Nelson H. F. Beebe" <beebe@math.utah.edu> writes:
> I've just done two builds of guile-2.0.1 on 64-bit PowerPC Gentoo
> Linux with differing choices of PATH. Here are the settings for one
> of them:
>
> % cat /etc/gentoo-release
> Gentoo Base System release 1.12.14
>
> % gcc --version
> gcc (Gentoo 4.4.5 p1.2, pie-0.4.5) 4.4.5
>
> PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin
>
> LDFLAGS='-Wl,-rpath,/lib -L/lib -Wl,-rpath,/usr/lib -L/usr/lib -Wl,-rpath,/usr/local/lib -L/usr/local/lib'
> LIBS=-lgc
>
> The builds are successful, but there is a single test failure:
>
> PASS: test-asmobs
> bad return from expression `(f-s8-)': expected -100; got -1
> bad return from expression `(f-u8-)': expected 200; got 0
> bad return from expression `(f-s16-)': expected -20000; got -1
> bad return from expression `(f-u16-)': expected 40000; got 0
> bad return from expression `(f-s32-)': expected -2000000000; got -1
> bad return from expression `(f-u32-)': expected 4000000000; got 0
I’ve reproduced the problem and I’m looking for a fix that won’t break
other arches. ;-)
See <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.ffi.general/406> for
details.
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: guile-2.0.1 on 64-bit PowerPC Gentoo Linux: one test failure
2011-05-06 7:57 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2011-05-08 15:27 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2011-05-08 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nelson H. F. Beebe; +Cc: bug-guile
Hi Nelson,
> "Nelson H. F. Beebe" <beebe@math.utah.edu> writes:
>
>> I've just done two builds of guile-2.0.1 on 64-bit PowerPC Gentoo
>> Linux with differing choices of PATH. Here are the settings for one
>> of them:
>>
>> % cat /etc/gentoo-release
>> Gentoo Base System release 1.12.14
>>
>> % gcc --version
>> gcc (Gentoo 4.4.5 p1.2, pie-0.4.5) 4.4.5
>>
>> PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin
>>
>> LDFLAGS='-Wl,-rpath,/lib -L/lib -Wl,-rpath,/usr/lib -L/usr/lib -Wl,-rpath,/usr/local/lib -L/usr/local/lib'
>> LIBS=-lgc
>>
>> The builds are successful, but there is a single test failure:
>>
>> PASS: test-asmobs
>> bad return from expression `(f-s8-)': expected -100; got -1
>> bad return from expression `(f-u8-)': expected 200; got 0
>> bad return from expression `(f-s16-)': expected -20000; got -1
>> bad return from expression `(f-u16-)': expected 40000; got 0
>> bad return from expression `(f-s32-)': expected -2000000000; got -1
>> bad return from expression `(f-u32-)': expected 4000000000; got 0
>
> I’ve reproduced the problem and I’m looking for a fix that won’t break
> other arches. ;-)
>
> See <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.ffi.general/406> for
> details.
Commit 012062a0d61cbd297dd58c8168433518c8b450cc fixes it. You can test
it using a 2.0 snapshot, see
<http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/download.html#snapshots>.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-05-08 15:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-04-28 18:39 guile-2.0.1 on 64-bit PowerPC Gentoo Linux: one test failure Nelson H. F. Beebe
2011-05-04 8:24 ` Marijn
2011-05-06 7:57 ` Ludovic Courtès
2011-05-08 15:27 ` Ludovic Courtès
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).