Re: regression in qmtest_libstdcpp

hi Stew
Thanks for diagnosing this. Sounds like a TSD
since the tests have been changed upstream.
What do others think? If possible I'd like to
get to closure on PR 80 soon
regards
Andrew


On Jul 28, 12:09pm in "[Lsb-test] regressio", Stew Benedict wrote:
> 
> I've just noticed a regression here testing against libstdc++.so.6 
> generated from gcc-4.0.1. The tests:
> 
> /demangle/abi_examples/01.cc 1 FAIL
> /demangle/abi_examples/02.cc 1 FAIL
> 
> Andrew pointed me to the following PR, which looks to be the same issue:
> 
> http://www.opengroup.org:8000/lsb/publicpr/PRView?PR=0080
> 
> Reviewing the gcc-4.0.1 source, I see the upstream tests have changed, 
> comparing them to the qmtest source (same change in 01.cc and 02.cc):
> 
> -  verify_demangle("f", "error code = -2: invalid mangled name");
> +  verify_demangle("f", "float");
> 
> Making the above change in the qmtest source tree and re-running 
> build_binary_testsuite, they now pass in that environment (they were 
> failing in the same manner as the binary test suite)
> 
> Testing against our 10.2 release with libstdc++.so.6 built from gcc-3.4.3, 
> the tests pass.
> 
> Since both libs are libstdc++.so.6 I can't easily do like I did for 
> LSB-2.0 and provide a compatible library for LSB purposes.
> 
> I don't claim to know enough about the tests to say whether it's TSD or an 
> upstream issue, but perhaps this will provide some more info to help 
> decide.
> 
> -- 
> Stew Benedict
> Mandriva
> Mandrakesoft becomes Mandriva
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lsb-test mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-test
>-- End of excerpt from Stew Benedict