[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Bug binutils/31327] New: libbacktrace test failures
From: |
sam at gentoo dot org |
Subject: |
[Bug binutils/31327] New: libbacktrace test failures |
Date: |
Fri, 02 Feb 2024 07:21:26 +0000 |
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31327
Bug ID: 31327
Summary: libbacktrace test failures
Product: binutils
Version: unspecified
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: binutils
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: sam at gentoo dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Configured binutils-2.42 at 7e4f6dd4e6ef2d6c5d7929bb90364d7bff887c27 on
binutils-2_42-branch with:
```
$ ./configure --prefix=/tmp/bisect --disable-gdb --disable-libdecnumber
--disable-readline --disable-sim && make -j$(nproc) && make -j$(nproc) check
```
The libbacktrace testsuite fails its mtest_minidebug test for me:
```
FAIL: mtest_minidebug
=====================
test1: [0]: syminfo did not find name
test1: [1]: syminfo did not find name
test1: [2]: syminfo did not find name
test1: [0]: missing function name
test1: [1]: missing function name
test1: [2]: missing function name
test3: [0]: NULL syminfo name
test3: [1]: NULL syminfo name
test3: [2]: NULL syminfo name
test5: NULL syminfo name
FAIL: backtrace_full noinline
FAIL: backtrace_simple noinline
FAIL: backtrace_syminfo variable
FAIL mtest_minidebug (exit status: 1)
```
I can hit the same on binutils-2.41_release so I guess something else changed
(either glibc-2.39 or gcc 14).
I notice our copy of libbacktrace looks a bit stale comapred to the one in gcc
- maybe needs a sync?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
- [Bug binutils/31327] New: libbacktrace test failures,
sam at gentoo dot org <=