https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673
--- Comment #23 from Martin Liska ---
Just for the record, as of version 0.175 the test works fine on all targets I
can test (including s390x).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673
--- Comment #22 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Michael Hudson-Doyle from comment #21)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #20)
> > (In reply to Michael Hudson-Doyle from comment #19)
> > > I see a similar looking failure on arm64 on
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673
--- Comment #21 from Michael Hudson-Doyle
---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #20)
> (In reply to Michael Hudson-Doyle from comment #19)
> > I see a similar looking failure on arm64 on Ubuntu 18.10:
> >
> > https://launchpadlibrari
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673
--- Comment #20 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Michael Hudson-Doyle from comment #19)
> I see a similar looking failure on arm64 on Ubuntu 18.10:
>
> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/391377304/buildlog_ubuntu-cosmic-arm64.
> elfutils_0.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673
Michael Hudson-Doyle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael.hudson at canonical
do
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673
--- Comment #18 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Martin Liska from comment #17)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Martin Liska from comment #15)
> > > Thanks Mark, I installed the patch but I see still the same
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liska ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #16)
> (In reply to Martin Liska from comment #15)
> > Thanks Mark, I installed the patch but I see still the same.
>
> The output was exactly the same? That is sur
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673
--- Comment #16 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Martin Liska from comment #15)
> Thanks Mark, I installed the patch but I see still the same.
The output was exactly the same? That is surprising. So there is no additional
output that expla
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liska ---
Thanks Mark, I installed the patch but I see still the same. For now, I'm
leaving that, I'm not so much interested in s390x ;)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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-
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
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]
>
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
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673
Dmitry V. Levin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldv at sourceware dot org
--- Comme
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
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.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673
Martin Liska changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|TEST|TEST
|./tests/backtr
18 matches
Mail list logo
