smokecurrent.log vs the report?
Bram
Configuration: -Dcc=/opt/gcc/bin_ccache/gcc430 -Ud_getprior
-Ud_setprior -Ud_setresgid -Ud_setresuid -Dusedevel -Duse64bitint
-DDEBUGGING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
make distclean ...
Copy Policy.sh ...
Configure ...[./Configure -des -Dcc=/opt/gcc/bin_ccache/gcc430
-Ud_getprior -Ud_setprior -Ud_setresgid -Ud_setresuid -Dusedevel
-Duse64bitint -DDEBUGGING]
getconf: Unrecognized variable `GNU_LIBPTHREAD_VERSION'
make ...[make ]
CCCMD = /opt/gcc/bin_ccache/gcc430 -DPERL_CORE -c
-DPERL_PATCHNUM=33976 -DDEBUGGING -DDEBUGGING -fno-strict-aliasing
-pipe -fstack-protector -I/u$
CCCMD = /opt/gcc/bin_ccache/gcc430 -DPERL_CORE -c
-DPERL_PATCHNUM=33976 -DDEBUGGING -DDEBUGGING -fno-strict-aliasing
-pipe -fstack-protector -I/u$
gv.c: In function 'Perl_Gv_AMupdate':
[ lots of other warnings ]
Tests start here:
TSTENV = stdio AutoSplitting perl library
./miniperl -Ilib -MAutoSplit -MFile::Find -e ' \
find ({no_chdir=>1, wanted => \
sub {autosplit_lib_modules($_) if /\.pm$/}}, \
"lib")'
[ ... ]
make[2]: Entering directory `/opt/perl/perl-5.10.x'
cd t && ./perl harness </dev/tty
base/cond..........................................................ok
[ ... ]
pod/twice..........................................................ok
x2p/s2p............................................................ok
Test Summary Report
-------------------
op/int.t (Wstat:
0 Tests: 14 Failed: 1)
Failed test: 6
Files=1530, Tests=200486, 519 wallclock secs (26.40 usr 3.52 sys +
273.69 cusr 19.80 csys = 323.41 CPU)
Result: FAIL
Failed 1/1530 test programs. 1/200486 subtests failed.
make[2]: *** [_test_tty] Error 255
make[2]: Leaving directory `/opt/perl/perl-5.10.x'
make[1]: *** [_test] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/opt/perl/perl-5.10.x'
make: *** [test_harness] Error 2
error while running harness target 'test_harness': 2 at
/opt/perl/libs/local/share/perl/5.6.1/Test/Smoke.pm line 182
Archived results...
Unskip tests from '/opt/perl/bin/skip_tests'
t/op/mkdir.t: not ok
t/op/time.t: not ok
Finished smoking 33976
Reading smokeresult from /opt/perl/perl-5.10.x/mktest.out
Processing [-Dcc=/opt/gcc/bin_ccache/gcc430 -Ud_getprior -Ud_setprior
-Ud_setresgid -Ud_setresuid]
[default]: O
Processing [-DDEBUGGING -Dcc=/opt/gcc/bin_ccache/gcc430 -Ud_getprior
-Ud_setprior -Ud_setresgid -Ud_setresuid]
[default]: O
Processing [-Dcc=/opt/gcc/bin_ccache/gcc430 -Ud_getprior -Ud_setprior
-Ud_setresgid -Ud_setresuid -Duseithreads]
[default]: O
Processing [-DDEBUGGING -Dcc=/opt/gcc/bin_ccache/gcc430 -Ud_getprior
-Ud_setprior -Ud_setresgid -Ud_setresuid -Duseithreads]
[default]: O
Processing [-Dcc=/opt/gcc/bin_ccache/gcc430 -Ud_getprior -Ud_setprior
-Ud_setresgid -Ud_setresuid -Duse64bitint]
[default]: ?
Processing [-DDEBUGGING -Dcc=/opt/gcc/bin_ccache/gcc430 -Ud_getprior
-Ud_setprior -Ud_setresgid -Ud_setresuid -Duse64bitint]
[default]: ?
Writing report to '/opt/perl/perl-5.10.x/mktest.rpt':Locally applied
patches from '/opt/perl/perl-5.10.x/patchlevel.h': open ok
Patches: 'MAINT33535;SMOKE33976'
Looking for cc messages: 'gcc'
Reading logfile '/opt/perl/libs/local/bin/smokecurrent.log'
Pattern(gcc): /(^(?-s:.+?):(?: In function .+?:$|(?: undefined
reference to .+?$)|\d+(?:\:\d+)?: (?:warning:|error:|invalid) .+?$))/
OK
[http]
Sending report
The message send to the list:
Subject: Smoke [5.10.0] 33976 PASS-so-far linux 2.6.8-fl1.4 [debian]
(i686/1 cpu)
Automated smoke report for 5.10.0 patch 33976
delvaux-v1: AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 146 (AuthenticAMD 2010MHz) (i686/1 cpu)
on linux - 2.6.8-fl1.4 [debian]
using /opt/gcc/bin_ccache/gcc430 version 4.3.0
smoketime 1 hour 23 minutes (average 13 minutes 56 seconds)
Summary: PASS-so-far
O = OK F = Failure(s), extended report at the bottom
X = Failure(s) under TEST but not under harness
? = still running or test results not (yet) available
Build failures during: - = unknown or N/A
c = Configure, m = make, M = make (after miniperl), t = make test-prep
33976 Configuration (common) -Dcc=/opt/gcc/bin_ccache/gcc430
-Ud_getprior -Ud_setprior -Ud_setresgid -Ud_setresuid
----------- ---------------------------------------------------------
O O
O O -Duseithreads
? ? -Duse64bitint
| +--------- -DDEBUGGING
+----------- no debugging
According to smokecurrent.log the result is FAIL,
According to the mail that was send the result is PASS-so-far.
Any ideas on where/how to start diagnosing?
Kind regards,
Bram
H.Merijn Brand
wrote:
Rebuild the perl that caused this fail
$ cd t
$ ./perl
$ env HARNESS_VERBOSE=9 HARNESS_DEBUG=9 ./perl harness op/int.t
and see if it still fails, and if there are more (useful) indicators to
the problem.
I think the '?'s should be either 'F' or 'X' here. No idea as yet why
they are '?'
--
H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/)
using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.10.x on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00, 11.11,
& 11.23, SuSE 10.1 & 10.2, AIX 5.2, and Cygwin. http://qa.perl.org
http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/ http://www.test-smoke.org
http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
Dominic Dunlop
> I think the '?'s should be either 'F' or 'X' here. No idea as yet why
> they are '?'
You can specify a maximum wallclock time for a smoke test. '?' is the
reported status for configurations that did not finish or did not get
run because the smoke was still running when the guillotine descended.
Is that what happened during the test in question?
See "killtime" on configsmoke.3 man page.
--
Dominic Dunlop
Bram
> On 2008–06–03, at 15:17, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>
>> I think the '?'s should be either 'F' or 'X' here. No idea as yet why
>> they are '?'
>
>
> You can specify a maximum wallclock time for a smoke test. '?' is the
> reported status for configurations that did not finish or did not get
> run because the smoke was still running when the guillotine descended.
> Is that what happened during the test in question?
That's not what happened...
Killtime is 6 hours, the smoke only ran for 1 - 1.5 hours
(And even if that is what happened - it should still show a F
somewhere in the report. A smoke finished and resulted in fail, or
atleast that's how it was recoreded in smokecurrent.log)
H.Merijn Brand
But that would leave you with *one* '?' in the report. I've had many
of those. Bram's report had two '?'s
Dominic Dunlop
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:29:46 +0200, Dominic Dunlop
> <should...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2008–06–03, at 15:17, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>>
>>> I think the '?'s should be either 'F' or 'X' here. No idea as yet
>>> why
>>> they are '?'
>>
>>
>> You can specify a maximum wallclock time for a smoke test. '?' is the
>> reported status for configurations that did not finish or did not get
>> run because the smoke was still running when the guillotine
>> descended.
>> Is that what happened during the test in question?
>>
>> See "killtime" on configsmoke.3 man page.
>
> But that would leave you with *one* '?' in the report. I've had many
> of those. Bram's report had two '?'s
Good point. A bit of trawling shows Steve Hay was getting (nothing
but) consecutive '?'s in early January reports from Test::Smoke
v1.20.07 build 1123; he upgraded to Test::Smoke v1.29_60 build 1155,
and the problem went away. However, as Bram's report is from
Test::Smoke v1.32 build 1176, that's probably not the answer -- unless
there was a problem that got fixed and then regressed.
See <http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.daily-build.reports/2008/01/msg52888.html
>, <http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.daily-build.reports/2008/01/msg52910.html
>, abd <http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.daily-build.reports/2008/01/msg52938.html
>. Steve, can you throw any light on what was going wrong?
[Note to self: upgrade your Test::Smoke.]
--
Dominic Dunlop
Steve Hay
> On 2008-06-03, at 23:14, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:29:46 +0200, Dominic Dunlop
>> <should...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
Sorry, no idea. The problem I had in January was simply that I was
running a version of Test-Smoke that pre-dated changes to take account
of the new format of Test-Harness output, which resulted (as you've
seen) in *everything* being a '?'. As soon as I upgraded they were all
fixed. I don't recall having had smokes that mostly worked but had a
couple of '?'s.