[lsb-discuss] Resending tests for libc APIs
pavan at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Tue Oct 30 00:09:41 PDT 2007
Hi Stew, All
I included the inet_aton in LI18N as I couldn't find any network APIs in
Test results on opensuse 10.3:
/tset/POSIX.os/files/posix_fadvise/T.posix_fadvise 3 PASS
400|0 3 1 12:19:18|IC Start
200|0 3 12:19:18|TP Start
220|0 3 0 12:19:18|PASS
410|0 3 1 12:19:18|IC End
/tset/POSIX.os/files/posix_madvise/T.posix_madvise 4 UNRESOLVED
400|0 4 1 11:30:03|IC Start
200|0 4 11:30:03|TP Start
520|0 4 00012834 1 1|unexpected signal 11 (SIGSEGV) received
220|0 4 2 11:30:03|UNRESOLVED
410|0 4 1 11:30:03|IC End
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 12:07 -0400, Stew Benedict wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Pavan Naregundi wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Sorry for sending patch in binary. Once again I am sending the
> > patches of tests for inet_aton(lts_li18nux2k.l1-3.1.90.patch) and
> > posix_fallocate, posix_fadvise, posix_madvise(lts_vsx-pcts-3.1.90.patch)
> > libc APIs.
> Applied the patches to my local branch of runtime test, with no issues.
> Tests built fine, I took a brief look at the test code and don't see
> anything controversial there.
> Question: I'm wondering why you chose to put the inet_aton test in LI18N?
> Seems like LSB.os or some other module might be more appropriate.
> Test results on SLES10 (IA32):
> /tset/POSIX.os/files/posix_fadvise/T.posix_fadvise 3 FAIL
> 520|131 3 00016383 1 1|posix_fadvise returned Success instead of EINVAL
> 220|131 3 1 09:22:34|FAIL
> (passed -1 as advice, when manpage says 0-7 are the only valid values)
> /tset/POSIX.os/files/posix_madvise/T.posix_madvise 4 FAIL
> 520|132 4 00016384 1 1|posix_madvise returned Success instead of EINVAL
> 220|132 4 1 09:22:35|FAIL
> 410|132 4 1 09:22:35|IC End
> (passed -1 as advice, when manpage says 0-4 are the only valid values)
> It would seem the test method is valid, but the behavior, at least on this
> platform does not agree with the man page. Did the tests pass on your test
> Anyone else have any comments?
> The rest of the tests all passed.
> I'll also need to adjust the test counts for the 17 additional tests, as
> tjreport is complaining about the counts, but that's just a minor
> housekeeping chore.
More information about the lsb-discuss