Re: Systemtap Test results 20070116 for ppc64

[Srinivasa Ds <srinivasa at in dot ibm dot com>]

Srinivasa Ds wrote:
> > FAIL: 32-bit chmod
> > FAIL: 32-bit dir
> > FAIL: 32-bit mmap
> > FAIL: 32-bit openclose
> > FAIL: 32-bit readwrite
> > FAIL: 32-bit statfs
> >
> > These tests were enabled in cvs on ppc64 within the last couple of
> > days. Did these tests pass in your case or were you using older code?
> I have downloaded latest source from here.
> ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/systemtap/snapshots/systemtap-20070113.tar.bz2 
>
> and tested it.
>   As you told, tests may get enabled in CVS recently.
>          Iam downloading latest source from cvs, I will test it and let
> you know the results.
Results of the latest source test.
Date: 200701191156
User: root
Kernel: Linux 2.6.19-rc1 #5 SMP Tue Nov 28 07:00:19 IST 2006 ppc64 ppc64 
ppc64 GNU/Linux

Testsuite summary of failed tests
FAIL: 
/home/cya/tmp/stap_testing_200701191156/src/testsuite/systemtap.base/kmodule.stp 
compilation
FAIL: probefunc:kernel.statement(0xc000000000057918) startup (eof)
FAIL: probefunc:kernel.inline("context_switch") compilation
FAIL: buildok/eighteen.stp
FAIL: buildok/four.stp
FAIL: buildok/lket.stp
FAIL: buildok/seventeen.stp
FAIL: buildok/twentyfive.stp
FAIL: semok/seventeen.stp
FAIL: semok/twelve.stp
FAIL: systemtap.samples/lket(semantic error)
FAIL: sysopen (0)
FAIL: acct
FAIL: alarm
FAIL: clock
FAIL: mmap
FAIL: readwrite
FAIL: signal
FAIL: stat
FAIL: statfs
FAIL: 32-bit acct
FAIL: 32-bit alarm
FAIL: 32-bit clock
FAIL: 32-bit mmap
FAIL: 32-bit readwrite
FAIL: 32-bit signal
FAIL: 32-bit stat
FAIL: 32-bit statfs
               === systemtap Summary ===

# of expected passes            293
# of unexpected failures        28
# of expected failures          122
# of unknown successes          2
# of known failures             3
# of untested testcases         2
# of unsupported tests          2
runtest completed at Fri Jan 19 18:07:43 2007

> > Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "didn't find any specific test
> > failures on ppc64."  Obviously there were failures, so you must be
> > making some other distinction.
> As Ananth told, What I meant is there weren't test failures unique to
> ppc64,in comparision with x86_64.
>
> Thanks
> Srinivasa DS