[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: musl bugs found through gnulib
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: musl bugs found through gnulib |
Date: |
Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:49:44 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/4.7.4 (Linux/3.1.10-1.9-desktop; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; ) |
[CCing the musl list]
Isaac Dunham wrote in
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2012-06/msg00101.html>:
> musl is designed for standards conformance,
There is a recipe, in <http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Testing/Gnulib>,
that explains how to use gnulib to check a libc against bugs. When I apply
this to musl-0.9.1, I get this list of problems:
Replacements of *printf, because of
checking whether printf supports infinite 'long double' arguments... no
checking whether printf supports the 'ls' directive... no
checking whether printf survives out-of-memory conditions... no
Replacement of duplocale, because of
checking whether duplocale(LC_GLOBAL_LOCALE) works... no
Replacement of fdopen, because of
checking whether fdopen sets errno... no
Replacement of futimens, because of
checking whether futimens works... no
Replacement of getcwd, because of
checking whether getcwd handles long file names properly... no, but it is
partly working
checking whether getcwd aborts when 4k < cwd_length < 16k... no
Replacement of getopt, because of
checking whether getopt is POSIX compatible... no
Replacement of glob, because of
checking for GNU glob interface version 1... no
(not sure this is a bug or just an incompatibility compared to glibc)
Replacement of iconv and iconv_open, because of
checking whether iconv supports conversion between UTF-8 and
UTF-{16,32}{BE,LE}... no
Replacement of mktime, because of
checking for working mktime... no
Replacement of perror, because of
checking whether perror matches strerror... no
Replacement of popen, because of
checking whether popen works with closed stdin... no
Replacement of regex, because of
checking for working re_compile_pattern... no
Replacement of strtod, because of
checking whether strtod obeys C99... no
For each of the replacements, first look at the test program's results
(in config.log), then look at the test program's source code (in m4/*.m4).
Furthermore we have test failures:
test-duplocale.c:70: assertion failed
FAIL: test-duplocale
test-fcntl.c:382: assertion failed
FAIL: test-fcntl
test-fdatasync.c:50: assertion failed
FAIL: test-fdatasync
test-fma2.h:116: assertion failed
FAIL: test-fma2
test-fsync.c:50: assertion failed
FAIL: test-fsync
test-fwrite.c:53: assertion failed
FAIL: test-fwrite
test-getlogin_r.c:88: assertion failed
FAIL: test-getlogin_r
test-grantpt.c:34: assertion failed
FAIL: test-grantpt
test-localeconv.c:41: assertion failed
FAIL: test-localeconv
Segmentation fault
FAIL: test-localename
test-ptsname_r.c:118: assertion failed
FAIL: test-ptsname_r
test-strerror_r.c:118: assertion failed
FAIL: test-strerror_r
test-wcwidth.c:71: assertion failed
FAIL: test-wcwidth
When I compile all of gnulib, I also get a compilation error
(may be a musl or a gnulib problem, haven't investigated):
fsusage.c: In function 'get_fs_usage':
fsusage.c:222:17: error: storage size of 'fsd' isn't known
fsusage.c:224:3: warning: implicit declaration of function 'statfs'
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
fsusage.c:222:17: warning: unused variable 'fsd' [-Wunused-variable]
make[4]: *** [fsusage.o] Error 1
Bruno
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, (continued)
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Isaac Dunham, 2012/06/11
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/06/12
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, John Spencer, 2012/06/12
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Bruno Haible, 2012/06/17
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/06/23
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Bruno Haible, 2012/06/24
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, John Spencer, 2012/06/24
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Paul Eggert, 2012/06/25
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, John Spencer, 2012/06/25
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Philipp Thomas, 2012/06/25
- Re: musl bugs found through gnulib,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: [musl] Re: musl bugs found through gnulib, idunham, 2012/06/17
- Re: [musl] Re: musl bugs found through gnulib, Rich Felker, 2012/06/18
- Re: [musl] Re: musl bugs found through gnulib, Eric Blake, 2012/06/18
- Re: [musl] Re: musl bugs found through gnulib, Rich Felker, 2012/06/18
- Re: musl, fdopen test, Bruno Haible, 2012/06/19
- Re: musl, fdopen test, Jim Meyering, 2012/06/19
- Re: musl, fdopen test, Bruno Haible, 2012/06/20
- Re: musl, printf out-of-memory test, Bruno Haible, 2012/06/19
- Re: [musl] Re: musl, printf out-of-memory test, Rich Felker, 2012/06/19
- Re: musl, printf out-of-memory test, Bruno Haible, 2012/06/19