[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120617090027.3125c8b9@newbook>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:00:27 -0700
From: Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: perl 5.16 tests...is shm working right?
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 10:44:51 -0400
Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:28:54AM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> > hello,
> > I built perl 5.16.0 (defaults to ansi c89, but needs
> > SIG_BLOCK...used -D_GNU_SOURCE -std=gnu99, but _POSIX_C_SOURCE +
> > -std=c99 is probably enough)
> > Still using gcc-3.4 (with -Os)
> >
> > 10 tests failed, including both shm tests.
> > So I'm wondering if the shm support is fully working, or if that's
> > just
>
> For the record, this is legacy sysv shm, not modern POSIX shm. Are you
> on a 32- or 64-bit machine? I'm guessing some of the structures and
> padding might be messed up on 64-bit, although I thought we looked
> into and fixed that a while back.
Atom/32-bit x86.
I have only one computer out of 3 that supports 64-bit and it has 3 GB
RAM (until recently, 1 GB), so I haven't bothered trying 64-bit (partly
so I can share kernels and binaries, partly thanks to pointer bloat,
partly because I use dosemu with vm86 on them, and partly just
inertia).
Isaac Dunham
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
