Hi Luca, I investigated a little more this issue today and I spotted that it was a false alarm. Long story short: for several reasons I need to store shared libraries in a specific place (not inside Linux standard folders); to ensure my binaries can find the shared libraries I inject into libzmq the GCC -Xlinker -rpath /my/path option. The result is that regardless of libtool automagic LD_LIBRARY_PATH adjustments the tests were running against the outdated libzmq version inside /my/path. After updating /my/path/libzmq.so.5.1.3 the tests pass just fine, included test_req_relaxed.
I will start testing libzmq in my company's bigger software next week and will let you know... Thanks, Francesco 2017-11-21 17:10 GMT+01:00 Luca Boccassi <luca.bocca...@gmail.com>: > The closest I can get to that is on the Ubuntu 16.04 OBS build, where > the test passes: > > https://build.opensuse.org/build/network:messaging:zeromq:git-draft/xUb > untu_16.04/x86_64/libzmq/_log > > Ubuntu 16.04, gcc 5.3.1, libc 2.23, libstdc++ 5.3.1 - not quite the > same, but couldn't see how it could affect that test :-/ > > On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 16:59 +0100, Francesco wrote: > > Hi Luca, > > The environment is: > > - Ubuntu 16.04 (but I tested also on Centos 7 same result) > > - gcc 5.3.0 compiled from sources with default options (NOTE > > this is > > not gcc 5.5.0) > > - glibc 2.22 > > - libstdc++.so.6.0.21 > > > > Before update IIRC the tests were passing except for random failures > > of > > test_security_zap. > > > > Francesco > > > > > > 2017-11-21 16:30 GMT+01:00 Luca Boccassi <luca.bocca...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Thanks for the report, unfortunately I can't repro with GCC 5.5 > > > (the > > > closest I can get on Debian to 5.3). What's the full environment? > > > OS, > > > libc, libstdc++ > > > > > > On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 14:30 +0100, Francesco wrote: > > > > Hi Luca, > > > > I grabbed latest libzmq-master and rebuilt it with the GCC for > > > > our > > > > production software (gcc 5.3) and I always get the following test > > > > failure: > > > > > > > > ==================================== > > > > zeromq 4.2.3: ./test-suite.log > > > > ==================================== > > > > > > > > # TOTAL: 90 > > > > # PASS: 89 > > > > # SKIP: 0 > > > > # XFAIL: 0 > > > > # FAIL: 1 > > > > # XPASS: 0 > > > > # ERROR: 0 > > > > > > > > .. contents:: :depth: 2 > > > > > > > > FAIL: tests/test_req_relaxed > > > > ============================ > > > > > > > > lt-test_req_relaxed: tests/test_req_relaxed.cpp:118: int main(): > > > > Assertion > > > > `events == 2' failed. > > > > FAIL tests/test_req_relaxed (exit status: 134) > > > > > > > > > > > > I will try to debug that in the next days as soon as I have some > > > > time... > > > > Btw I'm building WITHOUT libsodium and with draft features > > > > turned > > > > on. I > > > > don't know if this makes any difference. > > > > > > > > Francesco > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-11-17 19:00 GMT+01:00 Brian Knox via zeromq-dev < > > > > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org>: > > > > > > > > > Hi Luca! I'll run some of my test suites against it later today > > > > > and > > > > > see if > > > > > anything breaks. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:05 AM Luca Boccassi <luca.boccassi@g > > > > > mail > > > > > .com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > With https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/issues/2733 duct-taped > > > > > > the > > > > > > major > > > > > > blocker for releasing libzmq 4.2.3 is gone. I am currently > > > > > > compiling > > > > > > the changelog. > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be great if folks with applications using 4.2.2 > > > > > > could > > > > > > test > > > > > > 4.2.3 and report any regressions that they eventually find. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Luca Boccassi_______________________________________________ > > > > > > zeromq-dev mailing list > > > > > > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > > > > > > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > zeromq-dev mailing list > > > > > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > > > > > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > zeromq-dev mailing list > > > > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > > > > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > > > > -- > > > Kind regards, > > > Luca Boccassi > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > zeromq-dev mailing list > > > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > > > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > zeromq-dev mailing list > > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > -- > Kind regards, > Luca Boccassi > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
