Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#70928 - [glibc] testsuite improvements

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Toolybird (Toolybird) - Tuesday, 18 May 2021, 02:57 GMT
Last edited by freswa (frederik) - Friday, 11 February 2022, 18:51 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To Giancarlo Razzolini (grazzolini)
freswa (frederik)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Since GCC-11, the glibc testsuite bails out early and fails to show the results summary. How does one know whether the build is any good or not?

Fix this by cherrypicking upstream patch. With this applied I get almost 100% pass. PKGBUILD patch attached.

NOTE: the Arch nspawn container for clean chroot builds blocks a few syscalls needed by the testsuite. This can be overcome by the following specially crafted .nspawn settings file (man systemd.nspawn to find out how to name and where to put the file.)

tl;dr version e.g. -> /run/systemd/nspawn/"$USER".nspawn)

[Exec]
Capability=CAP_IPC_LOCK
SystemCallFilter=@clock @pkey

There is one other test fail when building on AMD CPU. Upstream patch exists but is not committed yet[1]

I note also that the testsuite is not run for the 32-bit glibc build. Maybe nobody cares about the 32-bit libs but this seems less than ideal..

[1]: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27873
This task depends upon

Closed by  freswa (frederik)
Friday, 11 February 2022, 18:51 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Additional comments about closing:  Testsuite runs without errors in [testing]
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Tuesday, 18 May 2021, 03:49 GMT
> Maybe nobody cares about the 32-bit libs but this seems less than ideal..

I care about lib32 so little that I advocate for lib32 to be removed completed...
Comment by Toolybird (Toolybird) - Tuesday, 18 May 2021, 07:30 GMT
> I advocate for lib32 to be removed

Wow, interesting.. That would effectively kill off the multilib repo?

It wouldn't affect me personally but I imagine there would be a few unhappy campers.

Could be time for another one of your famous RFC's? :)

Loading...