* [Bug testsuite/10732] New: declaration.exp empty-struct always fails, resolve-fail passes erroneously
@ 2009-10-04 15:31 mjw at redhat dot com
2009-10-06 2:38 ` [Bug testsuite/10732] " jistone at redhat dot com
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: mjw at redhat dot com @ 2009-10-04 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
The declaration.exp testcases rely on kernel module function probe points that
don't exist in modern kernels. It would be better to rewrite these as user space
tests, so the testsuite controls all inputs.
Running /home/mark/src/systemtap/testsuite/systemtap.base/declaration.exp ...
running stap -v -p4 -e probe\ module(\"libata\").function(\"ata_qc_issue\")\ \{\
print(\$qc->\$scsicmd->\$device->\$host->\$host_no)\ \};
Pass 1: parsed user script and 60 library script(s) using
19364virt/11576res/2096shr kb, in 120usr/10sys/130real ms.
semantic error: no match while resolving probe point
module("libata").function("ata_qc_issue")
Pass 2: analyzed script: 0 probe(s), 0 function(s), 0 embed(s), 0 global(s)
using 136912virt/12392res/2488shr kb, in 20usr/60sys/88real ms.
Pass 2: analysis failed. Try again with another '--vp 01' option.
PASS: empty-struct resolve-fail compilation failed correctly
running stap -v -p4 -e probe\
module(\"scsi_mod\").function(\"scsi_request_fn\")\ \{print(\$q)\} probe\
module(\"libata\").function(\"ata_qc_issue\")\ \{\
print(\$qc->\$scsicmd->\$device->\$host->\$host_no)\ \};
Pass 1: parsed user script and 60 library script(s) using
19364virt/11576res/2096shr kb, in 120usr/10sys/140real ms.
semantic error: no match while resolving probe point
module("scsi_mod").function("scsi_request_fn")
Pass 2: analyzed script: 0 probe(s), 0 function(s), 0 embed(s), 0 global(s)
using 136912virt/12388res/2488shr kb, in 20usr/70sys/91real ms.
Pass 2: analysis failed. Try again with another '--vp 01' option.
FAIL: empty-struct resolve-pass compilation failed
--
Summary: declaration.exp empty-struct always fails, resolve-fail
passes erroneously
Product: systemtap
Version: unspecified
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com
ReportedBy: mjw at redhat dot com
CC: jistone at redhat dot com
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10732
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/10732] declaration.exp empty-struct always fails, resolve-fail passes erroneously
2009-10-04 15:31 [Bug testsuite/10732] New: declaration.exp empty-struct always fails, resolve-fail passes erroneously mjw at redhat dot com
@ 2009-10-06 2:38 ` jistone at redhat dot com
2009-12-28 11:13 ` mjw at redhat dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: jistone at redhat dot com @ 2009-10-06 2:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From jistone at redhat dot com 2009-10-06 02:38 -------
This seems to be testing that one module can implicitly provide a struct
declaration for a probe in some other module. IIRC, we decided against this
"global type" behavior, opting instead to go with explicit @casts where necessary...
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10732
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/10732] declaration.exp empty-struct always fails, resolve-fail passes erroneously
2009-10-04 15:31 [Bug testsuite/10732] New: declaration.exp empty-struct always fails, resolve-fail passes erroneously mjw at redhat dot com
2009-10-06 2:38 ` [Bug testsuite/10732] " jistone at redhat dot com
@ 2009-12-28 11:13 ` mjw at redhat dot com
2010-01-04 15:24 ` dsmith at redhat dot com
2010-01-05 10:47 ` mjw at redhat dot com
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: mjw at redhat dot com @ 2009-12-28 11:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From mjw at redhat dot com 2009-12-28 11:13 -------
For now I XFAILed this test. But maybe it should be removed completely?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10732
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/10732] declaration.exp empty-struct always fails, resolve-fail passes erroneously
2009-10-04 15:31 [Bug testsuite/10732] New: declaration.exp empty-struct always fails, resolve-fail passes erroneously mjw at redhat dot com
2009-10-06 2:38 ` [Bug testsuite/10732] " jistone at redhat dot com
2009-12-28 11:13 ` mjw at redhat dot com
@ 2010-01-04 15:24 ` dsmith at redhat dot com
2010-01-05 10:47 ` mjw at redhat dot com
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: dsmith at redhat dot com @ 2010-01-04 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From dsmith at redhat dot com 2010-01-04 15:24 -------
I'm thinking it should be removed.
If we want to test that one module can implicitly provide a struct
declaration for a probe in some other module, the safest way might be to
write/compile/install a couple of custom kernel modules. But, that seems like
overkill for a situation that '@cast' is designed to solve.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10732
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/10732] declaration.exp empty-struct always fails, resolve-fail passes erroneously
2009-10-04 15:31 [Bug testsuite/10732] New: declaration.exp empty-struct always fails, resolve-fail passes erroneously mjw at redhat dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-01-04 15:24 ` dsmith at redhat dot com
@ 2010-01-05 10:47 ` mjw at redhat dot com
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: mjw at redhat dot com @ 2010-01-05 10:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From mjw at redhat dot com 2010-01-05 10:46 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> I'm thinking it should be removed.
OK, I removed the test completely.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10732
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-01-05 10:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-10-04 15:31 [Bug testsuite/10732] New: declaration.exp empty-struct always fails, resolve-fail passes erroneously mjw at redhat dot com
2009-10-06 2:38 ` [Bug testsuite/10732] " jistone at redhat dot com
2009-12-28 11:13 ` mjw at redhat dot com
2010-01-04 15:24 ` dsmith at redhat dot com
2010-01-05 10:47 ` mjw at redhat dot com
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).