Re: GNU M4 1.4.5 test failures

[Eric Blake]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

According to Eric Blake on 7/18/2006 6:08 AM:
>>>     --
>>>     Failed checks were:
>>>       ./082.patsubst:out ./092.platform_ma:out
> 
> Which platform was this?  We were unable to determine a platform macro to
> use (such as __unix__, __windows__, or __os2__).  Is there a good
> preprocessor constant we can key off of to define a platform macro for
> this system?

Looking through your logs offlist, I see this was:
Machinetype:            Apple Power Mac G4 (2 1420 MHz PowerPC G4 (3.3)
CPUs, 2G
B RAM); Darwin 7.9.0 (Mac OS X Server 10.3.9 (7W98))

Is Mac OS X close enough to POSIX that it should define __unix__?  That is
what happens on cygwin, at any rate.  The file to patch would be src/m4.h,
which currently does:

/* Canonicalize UNIX recognition macros.  */
#if defined unix || defined __unix || defined __unix__ \
  || defined _POSIX_VERSION || defined _POSIX2_VERSION
# define UNIX 1
#endif

What does OS X provide that I could add to this list?

>>>     Failed checks were:
>>>       ./079.regexp:out ./082.patsubst:out ./082.patsubst:err 
>>> ./096.sysval:out
> 
> What platform was this?  What was the failure mode of 096.sysval:out?  Can
> you attach the actual output from that command?  sysval is inherently
> non-portable, since system() semantics vary on non-POSIX systems, and our
> testsuite may be making a bad assumption.

Again, looking at your logs, this was

Machinetype:            Intel Pentium III (600 MHz);    OpenBSD 3.2
GENERIC#25 i386

Nice and old, and that probably explains why it doesn't define a platform
macro.  Again, like the Mac case, is there something I could add to the
list, since I know BSD variants should fall under __unix__?

Checking ./096.sysval
@ ../doc/m4.texinfo:3788: Origin of test
./096.sysval: stdout mismatch
2c2
< 256
- ---
> 129

OK, the assumption here was that `kill -1 $$' would exit a shell with
signal 1 (ie. WIFSIGNALED true), but this old platform exited instead with
a non-signal value of 129 (although that corresponds to signal 1).  What
variant and version is /bin/sh on that machine?  Is it old enough that we
can just ignore this test failure?

- --
Life is short - so eat dessert first!

Eric Blake             address@hidden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEvNw/84KuGfSFAYARAjrGAKC2Rjn18qwmHarV0G6fTnekNdh+xACfRJbj
RKCwvKSZkDjU6tbZMOSNXRM=
=IbSD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----