Обсуждение: Why is ecpg segfaulting on buildfarm member "clownfish"?
Has anyone looked into $SUBJECT? I just today realized that the ECPG-Check failures on that machine are not the run-of-the-mill small difference in the expected results. Rather, most of the tests are actually dumping core on the client side: testing connect/test1.pgc ... skipped testing connect/test2.pgc ... Segmentation Fault - core dumped FAILED (log) testing connect/test3.pgc ... Segmentation Fault - core dumped FAILED (log) testing connect/test4.pgc ... ok testing connect/test5.pgc ... ok testing compat_informix/charfuncs.pgc ... ok testing compat_informix/dec_test.pgc ... ok testing compat_informix/rfmtdate.pgc ... ok testing compat_informix/rfmtlong.pgc ... ok testing compat_informix/rnull.pgc ... Segmentation Fault - core dumped FAILED (log, output) testing compat_informix/test_informix.pgc ... Segmentation Fault - core dumped FAILED (log, output) testing compat_informix/test_informix2.pgc ... Segmentation Fault - core dumped FAILED (log, output) testing preproc/comment.pgc ... ok testing preproc/define.pgc ... Segmentation Fault - core dumped FAILED (log, output) etc etc BTW, this is a perfect example of why it's not a good idea to allow minor regression failures to go unfixed --- people become desensitized. I know I've been completely ignoring ECPG-Check buildfarm results for awhile now. regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: [...] > BTW, this is a perfect example of why it's not a good idea to allow > minor regression failures to go unfixed --- people become desensitized. > I know I've been completely ignoring ECPG-Check buildfarm results > for awhile now. I already reported that a while ago: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-01/msg00319.php there was also some discussion off-list last week with Michael - I have arranged for an account on that box for him but I'm not sure if he already found time to investigate. Stefan
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 06:25:50PM +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > >BTW, this is a perfect example of why it's not a good idea to allow > >minor regression failures to go unfixed --- people become desensitized. > >I know I've been completely ignoring ECPG-Check buildfarm results > >for awhile now. I was aware of this Tom, but didn't find the time to dig into it yet. > there was also some discussion off-list last week with Michael - I have > arranged for an account on that box for him but I'm not sure if he > already found time to investigate. I did today. This seemed like a strange one, but apparantly a gcc ABI-bug workaround interfered with the compiler used here because the workaround wasn't covering all positions. make check now gives a full list of OKs on Stefan's machine. Thanks for the account. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!