Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:44:49 -0400
From: Rich Felker <>
Subject: Re: Testing of musl

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:17:24AM +0200, Miroslav Chabrecek wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> I tried to run libc-tests (;a=summary)
> on x86_64 architecture with musl library.
> In results, there are many FAILED tests:
> ~5 Compilation API errors
> ~5. Runtime errors
> ~ 182 Math precision errors
> So, I'm asking myself, if I run them in wrong way?
> Do you run the test before release and try to have zero failures or what is
> the testing process?

That sounds roughly expected. Keep in mind this is not a musl test
suite that's intended to pass 100% when the tests are written
(although it is generally intended on the musl side that musl fix
failures), but a mostly libc-agnostic testset that aims to test
standard libc interfaces as heavily/pedantically as possible.

The API errors are confstr/pathconf/sysconf keys we don't have defined
because we were waiting for glibc to assign numbers for them so our
numbering would be aligned.

The strptime errors are new functionality (IIRC not in a published
standard yet) musl has not implemented.

The math/* errors are all minor precision or status flags corner

musl/pleval is a test of musl internals that's no longer possible
because we hid the internal symbols, but it does work (and pass) with
static linking.

malloc-brk-fail and possibly a few other similar tests fail on some
systems but do not indicate a bug in musl; rather they indicate that
the test has some issues with how it evaluates what it's trying to


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.