Hi Bruno, On 25 Dec 2010, at 21:42, Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org> wrote: > Regarding your reports on glibc/Linux systems: >>> Distcheck results by architecture and compiler: >>> >>> ix86 RHEL 3 gcc 3.2.3 (317 tests passed) >>> ix86 RHEL 4 gcc 3.4.6 (test-fcntl-h-c++.cc compile failed: >>> 133: symbol `mknod' already defined) >>> ix86 RHEL 5 gcc 4.1.2 (rename, renameat) >>> ix86 SLED 10 gcc 4.1.2 (fchownat, rename, renameat) >>> x86_64 RHEL 3 gcc 3.2.3 (fprintf-posix2.sh) >>> x86_64 RHEL 4i gcc 3.4.6 (test-fcntl-h-c++.cc compile failed: >>> 124: symbol `mknod' already defined >>> 149: symbol `lstat' already defined >>> 172: symbol `fstat' already defined) >>> x86_64 RHEL 5 gcc 4.1.2 (dprintf-posix2.sh, fprintf-posix3.sh >>> rename, renameat) >>> x86_64 SLED 10 gcc 4.1.2 (rename, renameat) > > At this point, all the bugs are fixed, except > - On the first machine type (x86 RHEL 3), I get the test failures > related to NFS timestamps, mentioned in > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2010-11/msg00113.html>. > - I could never reproduce the *printf-posix*.sh failures. They could be > due to building libposix as a shared library.
That's great news, thanks for following up. As soon as I have time after the new year I will rerun the tests and let you know how I get on. I've seen quite a few patches go by in relation to my original reports; are you saying that (excepting the above) everything I reported should now be fixed? Or just the arches quoted above? What is the status of the libposix branch now? Should I merge the tip of trunk into the topic branch before making a new libposix tarball for test purposes? Cheers, Gary -- Gary V. Vaughan (g...@gnu.org)
