This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.21 - Machine maintainers, please test your machines.
- From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf at ezchip dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Kaz Kojima <kkojima at rr dot iij4u dot or dot jp>, Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>, Marcus Shawcroft <marcus dot shawcroft at linaro dot org>, David Holsgrove <david dot holsgrove at xilinx dot com>, Chung-Lin Tang <chunglin_tang at mentor dot com>, Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Andreas Krebbel <krebbel at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 10:14:29 -0500
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.21 - Machine maintainers, please test your machines.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: linux.vnet.ibm.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;linux.vnet.ibm.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=ezchip.com;
- References: <54C2BDD7 dot 7000304 at redhat dot com>
On 1/23/2015 4:32 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Dear Machine Maintainers,
Please start testing your machines against glibc
master.
Please update the glibc 2.21 release page with your
testing results:
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.21
If nobody objects I want to cut the release as soon
as we have results for all the machines.
Cheers,
Carlos.
tilegx64 is fine (modulo the one bug compiler bug that has been outstanding for multiple glibc releases now).
tilegx32 has a bunch of new failures, all of which manifest as bus errors:
FAIL: nptl/tst-sem14
FAIL: nptl/tst-sem3
FAIL: nptl/tst-sem6
FAIL: nptl/tst-signal3
FAIL: nptl/tst-tls2
FAIL: nptl/tst-tls3
I assume these are all from the new semaphore code but have not had an opportunity to look more closely. One thing that could cause this is if somehow we are trying to do atomic operations on 64-bit values that aren't aligned to an 8-byte boundary.
--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com