From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxim Cournoyer Subject: bug#38250: PHP 7.3.11 fails its test suite Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:47:47 -0500 Message-ID: <87wo97q87w.fsf@gmail.com> References: <871ru6usi9.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51321) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ixjlM-00052X-1b for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:48:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ixjlK-0004vv-HJ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:48:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:60533) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ixjlK-0004vc-3S for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:48:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ixjlK-0006gp-1o for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:48:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <871ru6usi9.fsf@gmail.com> (Maxim Cournoyer's message of "Mon, 18 Nov 2019 06:01:34 +0900") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: 38250@debbugs.gnu.org Maxim Cournoyer writes: > Whenever I tried building PHP as of Guix commit > 2484e0b3e481e2b1fcb6761d0dbf80da98089de4, the following tests fail: > > ===================================================================== > FAILED TEST SUMMARY > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Test disk_free_space and its alias diskfreespace() functions : basic functionality [ext/standard/tests/fi > Test lstat() and stat() functions: usage variations - creating file/subdir [ext/standard/tests/file/lstat > Test lstat() and stat() functions: usage variations - deleting file/subdir [ext/standard/tests/file/lstat > ===================================================================== > > The CI seems to be OK with it (I get a substitute). I wonder if it has > to do with my specific machine (X200). It's equipped with 8 GB of RAM > and 9 GB of swap. I can still reproduce this issue on the current core-updates branch, using a different x86_64 machine which has 8 GB RAM.