Re: blcr 0.8.2 with ubuntu karmic (kernel 2.6.31)

From: Alan Woodland (alan.woodland_at_gmail_dot_com)
Date: Tue Nov 10 2009 - 15:45:45 PST

  • Next message: Paul H. Hargrove: "Re: blcr 0.8.2 with ubuntu karmic (kernel 2.6.31)"
    2009/11/10 Paul H. Hargrove <PHHargrove_at_lbl_dot_gov>:
    > Alan Woodland wrote:
    >>
    [snip]
    >> The tests passed, except prctl(). The problem with the prctl test is
    >> actually that the configure test lives inside the "if cr_build_libcr"
    >> conditional, but I've been using --with-installed-libcr because the
    >> tests are the only part of the package that doesn't end up in a Debian
    >> package. If I don't configure with this flag it passes. I guess the
    >> fix is to either always run this test in configure, or do it when
    >> building one of the tests or the library?
    >>
    >> Alan
    >>
    >
    > OK, so I thing I messed up putting the HAVEW_PRCTL configure probe
    > conditional on cr_build_libcr, when it should probably have been conditional
    > on cr_build_tests.  The attached patch should resolve that.
    Haven't had a chance to test the patch yet.
    
    > However, IIRC this test should be printing "SKIPPED" rather than "FAIL" if
    > the configure probe failed (or in this case it was not run).  Is that right?
    The actual error was:
    
    No prctl() support was found at configure time - test skipped
    checkpoint/nonzeroexit (77)
    FAIL: prctl.ct
    
    Other tests print skipped as expected (e.g. hugetlbfs, bug2524). The
    prctl test seems to be hitting:
    #ifndef HAVE_PRCTL
    int main(void) {
        printf("No prctl() support was found at configure time - test skipped\n");
        return 77;
    }
    #else
    from prctl.c, so it looks like it's returning the magic test skipped
    value and I can't quite see a scenario that would lead to the test
    caller not noticing it right now.
    
    Alan
    

  • Next message: Paul H. Hargrove: "Re: blcr 0.8.2 with ubuntu karmic (kernel 2.6.31)"