From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Testing of musl
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:44:49 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191016114449.GT16318@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFLg4iDXUp4GJc+msg2dUUm5aqkyug0Q6RXdAsK3Dv7V6OU5dg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:17:24AM +0200, Miroslav Chabrecek wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I tried to run libc-tests (http://nsz.repo.hu/git/?p=libc-test;a=summary)
> on x86_64 architecture with musl library.
> In results, there are many FAILED tests:
> ~5 Compilation API errors
> ~5. Runtime errors
> ~ 182 Math precision errors
>
> So, I'm asking myself, if I run them in wrong way?
> Do you run the test before release and try to have zero failures or what is
> the testing process?
That sounds roughly expected. Keep in mind this is not a musl test
suite that's intended to pass 100% when the tests are written
(although it is generally intended on the musl side that musl fix
failures), but a mostly libc-agnostic testset that aims to test
standard libc interfaces as heavily/pedantically as possible.
The API errors are confstr/pathconf/sysconf keys we don't have defined
because we were waiting for glibc to assign numbers for them so our
numbering would be aligned.
The strptime errors are new functionality (IIRC not in a published
standard yet) musl has not implemented.
The math/* errors are all minor precision or status flags corner
cases.
musl/pleval is a test of musl internals that's no longer possible
because we hid the internal symbols, but it does work (and pass) with
static linking.
malloc-brk-fail and possibly a few other similar tests fail on some
systems but do not indicate a bug in musl; rather they indicate that
the test has some issues with how it evaluates what it's trying to
measure.
Rich
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-16 11:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-16 7:17 Miroslav Chabrecek
2019-10-16 11:44 ` Rich Felker [this message]
2019-10-16 13:09 ` Szabolcs Nagy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191016114449.GT16318@brightrain.aerifal.cx \
--to=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).