On 7 October 2013 13:08, Anil Singhar <anil.singhar@linaro.org> wrote:Well done! 4 of those 5 are listed in the output as ignored.
> Hi Neil,
>
> Thanks for your response. I prepared the mksh test and ran them. There were
> 5 failures (out of the 436 tests) as follows.
Since I started on this (and got that link), mksh has been updated.
> Right now, I don't know if
> these are failures due to klibc implementation or due to problems with the
> way I have build mksh itself. To some extent I suspect mksh as well because
> (i) I could not get mksh_44 (from this link: dget
> http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/m/mksh/mksh_44-1.dsc , the link
> seems to be broken)
You can get 44-1.dsc from snapshot.debian.org:
http://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20130305T212453Z/pool/main/m/mksh/mksh_44-1.dsc
I think you've done the right thing.
> but I used whatever I got ( mksh_44.orig.tar.gz , this
> may be missing some patches, how to get that.. ).(ii) While building mksh,
> encountered some compiler errors (e.g. conftest.c) but the building seemed
> to go fine despite these errors, so I went ahead with testing and ended up
> with 5 failures out of which mksh ignores 4 and didn't expect 1 as it
> reports.
>
> So, do you have any idea if I am doing the right thing..?
Compare with the Debian build log for 44-1:
> Should I worry
> about getting mksh build without any compiler error or warning first before
> attempting to use the tests..?
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mksh&arch=amd64&ver=44-1&stamp=1363807013
There's a different failure there.
I think this is ready to take to klibc upstream, let them decide on
the mksh test results.