bug-gawk
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bug-gawk] Beta release of gawk 4.2.0 now available


From: arnold
Subject: Re: [bug-gawk] Beta release of gawk 4.2.0 now available
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2017 04:22:17 -0600
User-agent: Heirloom mailx 12.4 7/29/08

Hi Assaf.

> 1.
> On FreeBSD-11.0p1, the following fails:
>
> ======== Starting shared library tests ========
> [...]
> inplace1
> ./inplace1.ok _inplace1 differ: char 47, line 2
> inplace2
> ./inplace2.ok _inplace2 differ: char 47, line 2
> inplace3
> ./inplace3.ok _inplace3 differ: char 47, line 2
> [...]

Please send results from make diffout.

> ============== _backsmalls1 =============
> *** backsmalls1.ok      Sun Apr  5 08:13:50 2015
> --- _backsmalls1        Wed Oct  4 07:15:17 2017

This appears to be a locale issue.

> 2.
> On older Alpine-Linux 3.5.2 (which uses musl-libc instead of glibc, and
> busybox instead of coreutils) - the following fails:
>
> ls: unrecognized option: f
> BusyBox v1.25.1 (2016-10-26 16:15:20 GMT) multi-call binary.
> [...]
> ===================================
>
> So I assume one test uses "ls -f" which isn't always in busybox.

Busybox is (or was) non-standard here.  Not my problem. :-)

> 3.
> On OpenSolaris 5.11, (x86 and sparc), compilation fails with:
> ===
> /bin/sh ./libtool  --tag=CC   --mode=compile gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
> -I./..   -g -O2 -DNDEBUG -MT inplace.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/inplace.Tpo -c
> -o inplace.lo inplace.c
> libtool: compile:  gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I./.. -g -O2 -DNDEBUG -MT
> inplace.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/inplace.Tpo -c inplace.c  -fPIC -DPIC -o
> .libs/inplace.o
> In file included from /usr/include/stdio.h:15:0,
> from inplace.c:37:
> /opt/csw/lib/gcc/i386-pc-solaris2.10/5.2.0/include-fixed/sys/feature_tests.h:346:2:
> error: #error "Compiler or options invalid for pre-UNIX 03 X/Open
> applications  and pre-2001 POSIX applications"
> #error "Compiler or options invalid for pre-UNIX 03 X/Open applications \
> ^
> make[4]: *** [inplace.lo] Error 1
> make[4]: Leaving directory

Please try to figure out what additional flags are needed here and we
can update a README file.  You may need -std=gnu99 or some such.

> 4.
> On OpenSolaris 5.10, compilation fails with:

According to your log, it's the same issue as above:

/opt/csw/lib/gcc/sparc-sun-solaris2.10/5.2.0/include-fixed/sys/feature_tests.h:3
46:2: error: #error "Compiler or options invalid for pre-UNIX 03 X/Open applicat
ions    and pre-2001 POSIX applications"
 #error "Compiler or options invalid for pre-UNIX 03 X/Open applications \
  ^

> 5.
> On AIX (from the GCC compile farm), the following fail:
> ====
> forcenum
> ./forcenum.ok _forcenum differ: char 61, line 3
> make: 1254-004 The error code from the last command is 1.
> make: 1254-005 Ignored error code 1 from last command.
> ...
> mbstr1
> ./mbstr1.ok _mbstr1 differ: char 1, line 1
> make: 1254-004 The error code from the last command is 1.
> make: 1254-005 Ignored error code 1 from last command.
> mbstr2
> ./mbstr2.ok _mbstr2 differ: char 6, line 2
> make: 1254-004 The error code from the last command is 1.
> make: 1254-005 Ignored error code 1 from last command.
> muldimposix
> ...
> ============== _forcenum =============
> *** forcenum.ok       Wed Aug 16 23:58:57 2017
> --- _forcenum Wed Oct  4 02:24:23 2017
> ***************
> *** 1,6 ****
>   [] -> 0 (type string)
>   [5apple] -> 5 (type string)
> ! [+NaN] -> nan (type strnum)
>   [ 6] -> 6 (type strnum)
>   [0x1az] -> 26 (type string)
>   [011Q] -> 9 (type string)
> --- 1,6 ----
>   [] -> 0 (type string)
>   [5apple] -> 5 (type string)
> ! [+NaN] -> NaNQ (type strnum)
>   [ 6] -> 6 (type strnum)
>   [0x1az] -> 26 (type string)
>   [011Q] -> 9 (type string)
> make: 1254-004 The error code from the last command is 1.

This is harmless - a libc difference.

> 6.
> This might be a false positive, but for some reason that I haven't
> pin-pointed yet, on some of my (automated) tests running 'make check'
> results only in "make 'CFLAGS=-g -O2 -DNDEBUG' 'LDFLAGS=' check-local"
> which does nothing - and so the tests are not executed.
>
> Perhaps related to not having tty ? or some other weirdness (these tests
> do not run on a terminal).

No clue.  Sorry.

Thanks for the reports,

Arnold



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]