GNU bug report logs -
#10437
parallel-tests: `recheck' recipe can cause sed to be invoked with too long input lines (was: Re: bug#10427: coreutils-8.14.116-1e18d: testsuite failures on NetBSD 5.1)
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[adding bug-automake in CC:]
Reference: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=10427#8>
Hi Paul, thanks for the report and diagnosis.
On 01/05/2012 10:00 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> The latest coreutils snapshot fail to build
>
>> On 01/03/2012 06:10 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> FYI, here's a snapshot of what will soon be coreutils-8.15,
>>> expected on Thursday or Friday.
>>>
>>> coreutils snapshot:
>>> http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz 5.2 MB
>>> http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz.sig
>>> http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-8.14.116-1e18d.tar.xz
>
> This snapshot doesn't build on Solaris 8 (sparc) with native tools,
> for a couple of reasons. I don't expect Solaris 8 is an active
> porting target any more, but these problems could well happen on
> active targets.
>
I agree.
> Second, there's code like this in tests/Makefile.in:
>
> @list='$(TEST_LOGS)'; \
> list=`for i in $$list; do \
> test .log = $$i || echo $$i; \
> done | tr '\012\015' ' '`; \
> list=`echo "$$list" | sed 's/ *$$//'`; \
>
> This generates a long line and sends it to 'sed',
> which complains "Output line too long." and outputs nothing.
>
And if I'm not mistaken, sed is allowed such a behaviour by POSIX, so this
is a portability problem in automake.
> This code is also generated by Automake. How about changing Automake
> to generate something like this instead?
>
> @test_logs='$(TEST_LOGS)'; \
> list=; \
> for i in $$test_logs; do \
> test .log = "$$i" || list="$$list $$i"; \
> done; \
>
> This avoids the business with echo and tr and ` sed and
> avoids the sed limitation with long lines.
>
Good idea. I will followed your idea (with some tweaks).
Patch coming up soon.
> Automake does this latter sort of thing in about 4 places,
>
Which "sort of thing" exactly? I could find only one place which suffers
of the problem you've pointed out, i.e., the `recheck recheck-html' rules
in lib/am/check.am. Am I missing something?
> and I figure it's done that way for a reason, but I don't
> know what the reason is.
>
The comments in lib/am/check.am should be explicative enough. if not,
that's a (minor) bug, so feel free to report it!
Thanks,
Stefano
This bug report was last modified 13 years and 141 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.