[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#26253: tests/misc/cut-huge-range.sh fails on arm-linux-gnueabihf
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
bug#26253: tests/misc/cut-huge-range.sh fails on arm-linux-gnueabihf |
Date: |
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 11:18:54 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Pádraig,
Pádraig Brady <address@hidden> skribis:
> On 26/03/17 06:41, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
[...]
>> Part of the reason, I think, is that ‘vm’ is computed by simply running
>> ‘cut -b1’:
>>
>> vm=$(get_min_ulimit_v_ cut -b1 /dev/null) \
>> || skip_ "this shell lacks ulimit support"
>>
>> … but the last couple of tests also run sh within that limit:
>
> Are you saying the returns_ call induces a subshell?
> I suppose it might on some shells, though it doesn't seem to on bash 4.3 here.
I don’t think ‘return_’ spawns a subshell, but the ulimit should account
for memory needed by the shell in addition to what ‘cut’ needs.
>> # Explicitly disallow values above CUT_MAX
>> (ulimit -v $vm && returns_ 1 cut -b$SIZE_MAX /dev/null 2>/dev/null) ||
>> fail=1
>> (ulimit -v $vm && returns_ 1 cut -b$SIZE_OFLOW /dev/null 2>/dev/null) ||
>> fail=1
>>
>> It might be more accurate to do something like:
>>
>> vm=$(get_min_ulimit_v_ sh -c 'cut -b1 /dev/null')
>
> That give 10004 rather than 5004 on my x86_64 system here.
> Another option might be to use:
> vm=$(get_min_ulimit_v_ returns_ 0 cut -b1 /dev/null)
>
> Does that give better results for you?
Yes the patch below on top of 8.26 (that is, without vm += 1000) works
for me.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
diff --git a/tests/misc/cut-huge-range.sh b/tests/misc/cut-huge-range.sh
index 6b3c5b6ed..eeba33fce 100755
--- a/tests/misc/cut-huge-range.sh
+++ b/tests/misc/cut-huge-range.sh
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
print_ver_ cut
getlimits_
-vm=$(get_min_ulimit_v_ cut -b1 /dev/null) \
+vm=$(get_min_ulimit_v_ returns_ 0 cut -b1 /dev/null) \
|| skip_ "this shell lacks ulimit support"