[Bug tools/23673] TEST ./tests/backtrace-dwarf fails on s390x in 0.174 release

2018-09-19 Thread mliska at suse dot cz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673 Martin Liska changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug tools/23673] TEST ./tests/backtrace-dwarf fails on s390x in at least 0.173

2018-09-19 Thread mliska at suse dot cz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673 Martin Liska changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|TEST|TEST |./tests/backtr

[Bug tools/23673] TEST ./tests/backtrace-dwarf fails on s390x in at least 0.173

2018-09-19 Thread ldv at sourceware dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673 --- Comment #8 from Dmitry V. Levin --- If a process is not being traced and PTRACE_TRACEME fails with EPERM, then it must be a kernel issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug tools/23673] TEST ./tests/backtrace-dwarf fails on s390x in at least 0.173

2018-09-19 Thread mliska at suse dot cz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673 --- Comment #9 from Martin Liska --- Hm, on x86_64 (on trunk) I see all tests OK, but: $ ./backtrace-dwarf backtrace-dwarf: backtrace-dwarf.c:146: main: Assertion `errno == 0' failed. 0x77a4f08b raise 0x77a384e9 abort 0x77a383c

[Bug tools/23673] TEST ./tests/backtrace-dwarf fails on s390x in at least 0.173

2018-09-19 Thread ldv at sourceware dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673 Dmitry V. Levin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ldv at sourceware dot org --- Comme

[Bug tools/23673] TEST ./tests/backtrace-dwarf fails on s390x in at least 0.173

2018-09-19 Thread mliska at suse dot cz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673 --- Comment #11 from Martin Liska --- With the suggested patch I see following in test-suite.log on s390x: [ 86s] + cat tests/test-suite.log [ 86s] == [ 86s]elfutils 0.174: tests/test-suite.lo

[Bug tools/23673] TEST ./tests/backtrace-dwarf fails on s390x in at least 0.173

2018-09-19 Thread ldv at sourceware dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673 --- Comment #12 from Dmitry V. Levin --- (In reply to Martin Liska from comment #11) > With the suggested patch I see following in test-suite.log on s390x: [...] > [ 86s] FAIL: run-backtrace-dwarf.sh > [ 86s] >

[Bug tools/23673] TEST ./tests/backtrace-dwarf fails on s390x in at least 0.173

2018-09-19 Thread mliska at suse dot cz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673 --- Comment #13 from Martin Liska --- (In reply to Dmitry V. Levin from comment #12) > (In reply to Martin Liska from comment #11) > > With the suggested patch I see following in test-suite.log on s390x: > [...] > > [ 86s] FAIL: run-backtrac

Handling pgoff in perf elf mmap/mmap2 elf info

2018-09-19 Thread Christoph Sterz
Hi, I work on Hotspot[1] an opensource linux perf aggregator and visualizer. For this we use perfparser[2], which in turn uses libdw for unwinding. Recently, we found more and more perf trace-files to use the 'pgoff' field [3]. This happens especially on newer distros, (arch, opensuse tumbleweed)

[Bug tools/23673] TEST ./tests/backtrace-dwarf fails on s390x in at least 0.173

2018-09-19 Thread mark at klomp dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673 --- Comment #14 from Mark Wielaard --- The test case does use assert and abort too much. How about we extend Dmitry's patch to get rid of them all (the only abort that should be there is the one in cleanup-13.c). diff --git a/tests/backtrace-