Re: automake 1.11: Lots of failed tests on Solaris 10 x86 w/Sun Studio compiler

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Ralf,

Am 18.05.2009 um 23:10 schrieb Ralf Wildenhues:
> > FAIL: insthook.test
>
> The insthook.test failure looks like you have some variables like
> $bindir or $exec_prefix or $prefix set in your environment.  Is that
> the case?  Maybe you can look over your environment for other possibly
> problematic settings.  We should clear them in tests/defs, I guess.

Yes, the environment has been customized extensively:

cd work/build-isa-i386/automake-1.11 && prefix="/opt/csw"  
exec_prefix="/opt/csw" bindir="/opt/csw/bin" sbindir="/opt/csw/sbin"  
libexecdir="/opt/csw/libexec" datadir="/opt/csw/share" sysconfdir="/ 
opt/csw/etc" sharedstatedir="/opt/csw/share" localstatedir="/opt/csw/ 
var" libdir="/opt/csw/lib" infodir="/opt/csw/share/info" lispdir="/opt/ 
csw/share/emacs/site-lisp" includedir="/opt/csw/include" mandir="/opt/ 
csw/share/man" docdir="/opt/csw/share/doc" sourcedir="/opt/csw/src"  
CPPFLAGS="-I/opt/csw/include" CFLAGS="-xO3 -xarch=386 -I/opt/csw/ 
include" CXXFLAGS="-xO3 -xarch=386 -I/opt/csw/include" LDFLAGS="- 
xarch=386 -L/opt/csw/lib" ASFLAGS="" OPTFLAGS="-xO3 -xarch=386" CC="/ 
opt/studio/SOS11/SUNWspro/bin/cc" CXX="/opt/studio/SOS11/SUNWspro/bin/ 
CC" CC_HOME="/opt/studio/SOS11/SUNWspro" CC_VERSION="Sun C 5.8  
2005/10/13" CXX_VERSION="Sun C++ 5.8 2005/10/13" GARCH="i386"  
GAROSREL="5.10" GARPACKAGE="trunk" LD_OPTIONS="-R/opt/csw/lib/\ 
$ISALIST -R/opt/csw/lib" PKG_CONFIG_PATH="/opt/csw/lib/pkgconfig"  
DESTDIR="/export/home/dam/mgar/pkg/automake/trunk/work/install-isa- 
i386" ./configure --prefix=/opt/csw --exec_prefix=/opt/csw --bindir=/ 
opt/csw/bin --sbindir=/opt/csw/sbin --libexecdir=/opt/csw/libexec -- 
datadir=/opt/csw/share --sysconfdir=/opt/csw/etc --sharedstatedir=/opt/ 
csw/share --localstatedir=/opt/csw/var --libdir=/opt/csw/lib -- 
infodir=/opt/csw/share/info --includedir=/opt/csw/include --mandir=/ 
opt/csw/share/man

Some settings are redundant due to artifacts of the build system.

> > FAIL: man3.test
>
> This fails for similar reasons, suggesting that you have $prefix set.
>
> > FAIL: vala4.test
>
> This is a genuine bug in one of Automake, Autoconf, or your system  
> shell
> (which we'd then need to work around).  I'm seeing it on a Solaris
> system myself; will analyze.
>
> > FAIL: depcomp7.test
> > FAIL: instdir-ltlib.test
> > FAIL: instfail-libtool.test
> > FAIL: libtool5.test
> > FAIL: libtool6.test
> > FAIL: libtool8.test
> > FAIL: libtoo10.test
> > FAIL: libtoo11.test
> > FAIL: ltinstloc.test
> > FAIL: ltorder.test
> > FAIL: pr211.test
> > FAIL: silent3.test
>
> These all end with something like this, a successful command and
> supposedly an error in the cleanup trap:
>
> | + :
> | exit_status=0
> | + cd
> | /export/home/dam/mgar/pkg/automake/trunk/work/build-isa-i386/ 
> automake-1.11/tests
> | + chmod -R a+rwx libtoo11.dir
>
> Now, I bet the chmod throws an error, but since the code in
> tests/defs.in diverts stdout and stderr to /dev/null, we don't get to
> see it.  Can you do two tests for me, in order to analyze this issue?
>
> Please apply the first patch attached to this message, then run
>  make
>  cd tests
>  make recheck
>
> and post the detailed log of that, so we can find out why the chmod
> fails?  (If you don't have the build tree any more, then you can run
> 'make check' instead of 'make recheck', but it will take longer unless
> you limit the tests as described in tests/README.)

You will find the annotated log at
  <http://buildfarm.opencsw.org/automake/test-suite.log-20090519>

> Then, after that, please revert the first patch, and instead apply the
> second attached patch, then run
>  make
>  cd tests
>  make recheck
>
> to verify that most of the failures are gone now?

Some yes, some no:

FAIL: depcomp7.test
FAIL: instdir-ltlib.test
FAIL: instfail-libtool.test
PASS: libtool5.test
PASS: libtool6.test
PASS: libtool8.test
FAIL: libtoo10.test
FAIL: libtoo11.test
PASS: ltinstloc.test
FAIL: ltorder.test
PASS: pr211.test
FAIL: silent3.test
FAIL: vala4.test



> If my hypothesis is true, I will then apply the second patch to
> Automake, and add you to THANKS if you don't mind.

Sure :-) However, it looks like some more fixing is needed.


Best regards

  -- Dago