From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27861 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2005 20:38:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 27850 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Nov 2005 20:38:54 -0000 Subject: Re: Recent test results From: Martin Hunt To: William Cohen Cc: "systemtap@sources.redhat.com" In-Reply-To: <4374F29E.5030208@redhat.com> References: <4374F29E.5030208@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Red Hat Inc Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:38:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1131741388.3899.2.camel@monkey2> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-22) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-q4/txt/msg00188.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 14:35 -0500, William Cohen wrote: > Tried out testing a current snapshot of systemtap (20051111) on some > systems. [...] > Looking into why some of the x86_64 tests start failing when all are > run. It looks like it is failing in the same way as the ia64 tests > that Anil ran earlier in the week; things go wrong with simple.exp. > Also noticed that x86_64 version failed to report the systemtap > version. I got the same results as you. I'm certainly not an expect expert, but a quick look at stap_run.exp shows a major flaw. I made a quick fix and now I get: Running ./systemtap.samples/syscalls2.exp ... Running ./systemtap.samples/sysopen.exp ... Running ./systemtap.samples/transport.exp ... === systemtap Summary === # of expected passes 107 kernel version: 2.6.9-22.0.1.ELsmp systemtap translator version: version 0.4.2 built 2005-11-11