GNU bug report logs - #65978
comp-tests-ret-type-spec-71 fails on 32-bit powerpc

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab <at> suse.de>, debian-powerpc <at> lists.debian.org, 65978 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz <at> physik.fu-berlin.de>
Subject: bug#65978: comp-tests-ret-type-spec-71 fails on 32-bit powerpc
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 10:44:54 -0400

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> Cc: debian-powerpc <debian-powerpc <at> lists.debian.org>
>> From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz <at> physik.fu-berlin.de>
>> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 14:28:24 +0200
>> 
>> Hello!
>> 
>> The test comp-tests-ret-type-spec-71 reproducibly fails on 32-bit powerpc:
>> 
>> Test comp-tests-ret-type-spec-71 backtrace:
>>   signal(ert-test-failed (((should (equal (cl-third (subr-type (symbol
>>   ert-fail(((should (equal (cl-third (subr-type (symbol-function f-nam
>>   comp-tests-check-ret-type-spec((defun comp-tests-ret-type-spec-f (x)
>>   #f(compiled-function () #<bytecode -0x221c87d>)()
>>   ert--run-test-internal(#s(ert--test-execution-info :test #s(ert-test
>>   ert-run-test(#s(ert-test :name comp-tests-ret-type-spec-71 :document
>>   ert-run-or-rerun-test(#s(ert--stats :selector ... :tests ... :test-m
>>   ert-run-tests((not (or (tag :expensive-test) (tag :unstable))) #f(co
>>   ert-run-tests-batch((not (or (tag :expensive-test) (tag :unstable)))
>>   ert-run-tests-batch-and-exit((not (or (tag :expensive-test) (tag :un
>>   command-line-1(("-L" ":/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/debian/build
>>   command-line()
>>   normal-top-level()
>> Test comp-tests-ret-type-spec-71 condition:
>>     (ert-test-failed
>>      ((should
>>        (equal
>> 	(cl-third ...)
>> 	ret-type))
>>       :form
>>       (equal
>>        (or
>> 	(member 0.0 -0.0)
>> 	(integer 0 0))
>>        (or
>> 	(member -0.0 0.0)
>> 	(integer 0 0)))
>>       :value nil :explanation
>>       (list-elt 1
>> 		(list-elt 1
>> 			  (different-atoms 0.0 -0.0)))))
>>    FAILED  145/166  comp-tests-ret-type-spec-71 (0.399696 sec)
>
> Something about the sign of zero, I guess?  Adding Andreas, in the
> hope that he will have some suggestions.

Mmmh, I guess some of our sorting or compare function behaves
differently on this architecture... I'll try look closer at the code
tomorrow and try to guess something more precise.

Thanks

   Andrea

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.