From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/14816 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Testing of musl Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:44:49 -0400 Message-ID: <20191016114449.GT16318@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="189666"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-14832-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Oct 16 13:45:06 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iKhjl-000nFE-Io for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 13:45:05 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 24123 invoked by uid 550); 16 Oct 2019 11:45:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 24105 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2019 11:45:01 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:14816 Archived-At: 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