Re: coreutils-8.3: a few tests fail

[Pádraig Brady]

On 13/01/10 10:51, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Christophe LYON wrote:
> > I have built coreutils-8.3 and ran 'make check' on a few systems and I
> > have noticed some FAILs as follows. Given their old age, I am not sure
> > it is worth reporting, though.
> >
> > * Linux RedHat 3/x86: tail-2/inotify-hash-abuse, log extract:
> >    + kill -HUP 15829
> > [1]+  Hangup                  tail $debug -qF $(seq $n)>out 2>&1
> > + wait 15829
> > ./tail-2/inotify-hash-abuse: line 59: wait: pid 15829 is not a child
> > of this shell
> > + st=127
> > + echo tail died via unexpected signal: 127
> > tail died via unexpected signal: 127
> > + fail=1
> >
> > * Linux RedHat 3/x86: tail-2/inotify-hash-abuse2, log extract:
> > + kill -HUP 16044
> > ./tail-2/inotify-hash-abuse2: line 40: kill: (16044) - No such process
> > + wait 16044
> > + st=124
> > + echo tail died via unexpected signal: 124
> > tail died via unexpected signal: 124
> > + fail=1
> >
> > * Linux RedHat 3/x86_64: test-utimens (test-utimens.h:101: assertion failed)
> >
> > * Linux RedHat 4/x86: test-nanosleep (test-nanosleep.c:78: assertion failed)
> > * Linux RedHat 4/x86: test-sleep (test-sleep.c:53: assertion failed)
>
> Thanks for the report.
> Can you repeat the tests with the very latest snapshot?
>
>    http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.gz      9.4 MB
>    http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz      4.0 MB
>
> If any of those failures persist, we *might* have time to address
> one or two before coreutils-8.4, which is slated to be released today.

I think we may be encountering shell issues here?

We get 127 rather than 129 under dash
once the "hangup" message is displayed before
`wait` is called

$ /bin/sleep 20 & bg=$!
$ kill -HUP $bg
[1] + Hangup                     /bin/sleep 20
$ wait $bg
$ echo $?
127