[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: |
Pádraig Brady |
Subject: |
bug#26253: tests/misc/cut-huge-range.sh fails on arm-linux-gnueabihf |
Date: |
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:30:09 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 |
On 27/03/17 02:18, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> 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’.
Pushed in your name at:
http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=coreutils.git;a=commitdiff;h=f542200
Marking this as done.
cheers,
Pádraig