On Donnerstag, 18. Mai 2017 19:29:18 CEST Bruno Haible wrote: > Tim Rühsen wrote: > > $ ./gnulib-tool --create-testdir --dir=../testdir1 > > $ cd ../testdir > > $ ./configure CFLAGS="-g -coverage" > > $ make clean && make coverage > > I did > $ ./gnulib-tool --create-testdir --dir=../testdir-all > $ cd ../testdir-all > $ ./configure CFLAGS="-ggdb --coverage" > $ make coverage > > and these tests pass: > > PASS: test-fprintf-posix.sh > PASS: test-fprintf-posix2.sh > PASS: test-fprintf-posix3.sh > ... > PASS: test-printf-posix.sh > PASS: test-printf-posix2.sh
I am on a different hardware, but same OS (Debian unstable) now, same tests fail as before. > This is on Ubuntu 16.04, with > $ ulimit -s > 8192 ulimit -s is the same here. > > 7 failures are due to using system libunistring (Version > > 0.9.6+really0.9.3-0.1) and can be avoided by ./configure > > --with-included-libunistring. > > Ugh. Looks like your distributor plays weird games with the libunistring > shared library version. > https://launchpad.net/debian/+source/libunistring/0.9.6+really0.9.3-0.1 > This happens if a distributor gives a higher .so version to a shared library > than it really is. Yes, this is ugly. Gave us some headaches at the libidn2 project. Debian has a bug report pending from me and will likely fix it when freeze is over. > What do you get if you change the value 5000000 in > tests/test-fprintf-posix2.c to a larger or smaller value? No change with 500000 (10x smaller). Both succeed with 50000000 (10x higher). With Best Regards, Tim
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
