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.