Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:44:49 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com 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 (http://nsz.repo.hu/git/?p=libc-test;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 cases. 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 measure. 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.