Re: 11-CURRENT redports builders miscompiling?

From: Matthias Andree <mandree_at_FreeBSD.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 21:49:34 +0200
Am 07.10.2014 um 21:32 schrieb Antoine Brodin:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Matthias Andree <mandree_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I have just updated sysutils/e2fsprogs and its slave ports(*), and test
>> drove them on redports.  The self-test suite is failing on 11-CURRENT
>> i386 and amd64, but not on 10 or older releases.
>>
>> 11-amd64: https://redports.org/buildarchive/20141007190638-31576
>> 11-i386:  https://redports.org/buildarchive/20141007185700-4151
>>
>> I am now wondering
>> - if there are issues with the toolchain on 11 that causes
>> miscompilation, or
>> - whether 11 is misbehaving on redports, or
>> - if e2fsprogs has code bugs that don't show on older toolchains.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> e2fsprogs version 1.42.10 tests were succeeding in a jail with a world
> from r272576 (1.5 day old)
> 
> http://gohan2.ysv.freebsd.org/data/head-amd64-default-baseline/p370135_s272576/logs/e2fsprogs-1.42.10.log
> 
> (this is poudriere,  not tinderbox)

Hi Antoine,

merci for that.

There are probably multiple changes, so if someone else can take the
newer 1.42.12 for a test on 11-current, either on a naked system or with
poudriere, that will be appreciated.  What I find odd is that the
redports logs also show output deviations from expected, for instance,
here:

> ==> /work/a/ports/sysutils/e2fsprogs/work/e2fsprogs-1.42.12/tests/r_resize_inode.failed <==
> --- r_resize_inode/expect	2014-08-25 03:08:16.000000000 +0000
> +++ r_resize_inode.log	2014-10-07 19:10:00.000000000 +0000
> _at__at_ -1,7 +1,7 _at__at_
>  mke2fs -q -F -O resize_inode -o Linux -b 1024 -g 1024 test.img 16384
>  resize2fs test.img 65536
>  Resizing the filesystem on test.img to 65536 (1k) blocks.
> -The filesystem on test.img is now 65536 (1k) blocks long.
> +The filesystem on test.img is now 65536 (1480342k) blocks long.
>  
>  Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
>  Pass 2: Checking directory structure

The block size is bogus, and this happens on i386 and amd64 so is not
/obviously/ an issue of sizeof(long) or thereabouts.

Cheers,
Matthias
Received on Tue Oct 07 2014 - 17:49:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:52 UTC