[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: test results on NetBSD 7.0
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: test results on NetBSD 7.0 |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Aug 2017 16:50:47 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 |
Bruno Haible wrote:
Test results of a Gnulib POSIX testdir on NetBSD 7.0:
Thanks for doing that. Although I don't know about the math problems, here are
thoughts on the file-related issues.
FAIL: test-futimens
===================
../../gltests/test-futimens.h:154: assertion 'ctime_compare (&st3, &st2) < 0'
failed
FAIL test-futimens (exit status: 134)>
> ...
FAIL: test-utimens
==================
../../gltests/test-utimens.h:130: assertion 'ctime_compare (&st3, &st2) < 0'
failed
FAIL test-utimens (exit status: 134)
These two appear to because futimens and utimens are not properly marking the
ctime for update after they change a file timestamp. If I'm right, it's a NetBSD
bug that Gnulib cannot easily work around. It's just a guess, though.
FAIL: test-utimensat
====================
../../gltests/test-utimens.h:71: assertion 'func (BASE "file", ts) == -1' failed
FAIL test-utimensat (exit status: 134)
This appears to be because utimensat is not failing with errno==EINVAL for
tv_nsec values less than 0 or greater than 999999999 (and not UTIME_OMIT or
UTIME_NOW). If I'm right it's a NetBSD bug that Gnulib could work around though
this is low priority. It's just a guess, though.
FAIL: test-renameat
===================
../../gltests/test-rename.h:525: assertion 'stat (BASE "file", &st) == 0' failed
FAIL test-renameat (exit status: 134)
FAIL: test-renameat2
====================
These appear to be because Gnulib tests are too strict about renameat. They
should allow the NetBSD behavior, because it's better than the behavior that
POSIX requires. I installed the first attached patch to try to fix this.
While looking into the utimensat problem I noticed a portability glitch that is
unrelated to these NetBSD issues, and fixed that in the second attached patch.
It's probably just theoretical.
0001-rename-document-test-NetBSD-rename.patch
Description: Text Data
0002-futimens-don-t-assume-struct-timespec-layout.patch
Description: Text Data