From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1154 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: perl 5.16 tests...is shm working right? Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 10:44:51 -0400 Message-ID: <20120617144451.GP163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120617072854.146e3b14@newbook> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1339944555 18805 80.91.229.3 (17 Jun 2012 14:49:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 14:49:15 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1155-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Jun 17 16:49:15 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SgGmp-0006mh-Nc for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:49:07 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 28398 invoked by uid 550); 17 Jun 2012 14:49:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 28390 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2012 14:49:07 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120617072854.146e3b14@newbook> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1154 Archived-At: On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:28:54AM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote: > hello, > I built perl 5.16.0 (defaults to ansi c89, but needs > SIG_BLOCK...used -D_GNU_SOURCE -std=gnu99, but _POSIX_C_SOURCE + > -std=c99 is probably enough) > Still using gcc-3.4 (with -Os) > > 10 tests failed, including both shm tests. > I had at least 500 MB of RAM completely unused, so I > wouldn't expect any issues there. > So I'm wondering if the shm support is fully working, or if that's just For the record, this is legacy sysv shm, not modern POSIX shm. Are you on a 32- or 64-bit machine? I'm guessing some of the structures and padding might be messed up on 64-bit, although I thought we looked into and fixed that a while back. Rich