On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 04:07:50 +0200, Wenji Huang wrote: > Jan Kratochvil wrote: >> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:48:45 +0200, Wenji Huang wrote: >> ... >> >>> step-jump-cont-strict PASS on utrace patched 2.6.25 x86 kernel, >> >> Isn't it SKIP (77)? Please see below. > > Yes, return value is 0. > My box is upstream 2.6.25 + utrace patch(2008-4-17)
It is unreproducible for me: ./step-jump-cont-strict ;echo $? http://koji.fedoraproject.org/scratch/jkratoch/task_585171/kernel-vanilla-2.6.25-11.vanilla_utrace20080417.fc9.i686.rpm = http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.25.tar.bz2 sha1sum aa6187a1c212dd2d8bd906b023fcefdcf711f35e + http://people.redhat.com/roland/utrace/2.6-current/linux-2.6-utrace.patch 17-Apr-2008 04:38 sha1sum 1174c45ae6c068d1c7db08259f0aed5ef660d4d2 ./step-jump-cont-strict: step-jump-cont-strict.c:504: test_singleblock (, instruction -1): IP 0x8048707 expected: found 0x8048701 = CVS revision 1.10 1 This result is expected as in `utrace patch(2008-4-17)' is still not present the patch variant expected by current `step-jump-cont-strict'. (The test was run on qemu-kvm on Fedora 9 x86_64.) >> * Thanks for the bugreport, __i386__ was missing the defintion. >> It was provided only for __x86_64__ so far. >> > > Now, found you update the test case. The result is: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] tests]$ ./step-jump-cont-strict > ./step-jump-cont-strict: step-jump-cont-strict.c:504: test_singleblock (, > instruction -1): IP 0x804870f expected: found 0x8048709 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] tests]$ echo $? > 1 I hope this your result matches my result above and there are no longer any disagreements to resolve. Regards, Jan
