[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 12:29:52 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: perl 5.16 tests...is shm working right?
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 09:00:27AM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 10:44:51 -0400
> Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:28:54AM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> > > hello,
> > > I built perl 5.16.0 (defaults to ansi c89, but needs
> > > SIG_BLOCK...used -D_GNU_SOURCE -std=gnu99, but _POSIX_C_SOURCE +
> > > -std=c99 is probably enough)
> > > Still using gcc-3.4 (with -Os)
> > >
> > > 10 tests failed, including both shm tests.
> > > So I'm wondering if the shm support is fully working, or if that's
> > > just
> >
> > For the record, this is legacy sysv shm, not modern POSIX shm. Are you
> > on a 32- or 64-bit machine? I'm guessing some of the structures and
> > padding might be messed up on 64-bit, although I thought we looked
> > into and fixed that a while back.
> Atom/32-bit x86.
> I have only one computer out of 3 that supports 64-bit and it has 3 GB
> RAM (until recently, 1 GB), so I haven't bothered trying 64-bit (partly
> so I can share kernels and binaries, partly thanks to pointer bloat,
> partly because I use dosemu with vm86 on them, and partly just
> inertia).
OK. Have you tried strace on the tests?
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
