Jon Turney wrote:
On 05/07/2025 18:37, Christian Franke wrote:
Christian Franke wrote:
Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025, Christian Franke wrote:
- fp # WORKS,CI
+ fp # FAILS # TODO Cygwin: "terminated on signal:
11" (x86_64 on arm64 only), please see:
+ # https://sourceware.org/pipermail/
cygwin/2025-June/258332.html
- memcpy # WORKS,CI # (fixed in Cygwin 3.6.1: crash due to
set DF
in signal handler)
+ memcpy # FAILS # TODO Cygwin: "terminated on signal:
11" (x86_64 on arm64 only), please see:
+ # https://sourceware.org/pipermail/
cygwin/2025-June/258332.html
+ # (fixed in Cygwin 3.6.1: crash due to
set DF in signal handler)
These should be fixed now, by
b0a9b628aad8dd35892b9da3511c434d9a61d37f (or
cygwin-3.7.0-dev-161-gb0a9b628aad8)
Thanks for the positive feedback. Revised patch attached.
Pushed with another modification because procfs test works now.
Thanks for updating this.
It seems that the 'filerace' test (new?) doesn't work reliably in the
CI environment.
This (new!) test never failed during many runs I did locally before
tagging it as WORKS. There are also occasional failures of 'flock' and
'fork' at GH.
Today I could reproduce one hang of filerace when the number of cores is
closer to the VM behind GH actions.
$ cygstress -r 100 -c 16,18,20,22 filerace flock fork
...
>>> FAILURE: 11:58:32.68: filerace (exit status 0, command hangs,
processes left, files left in '/tmp/stress-ng.410.141.d')
...
>>> SUMMARY:
>>> FAILURE: filerace: 1 of 100 test(s) failed
>>> SUCCESS: flock: all 100 test(s) succeeded
>>> SUCCESS: fork: all 100 test(s) succeeded
Would it be possible for you to take a look?
Yes.
Should I push a new script version which excludes this test for now?
(As a aside, these CI failures are bridged to the #cygwin-developers
IRC. If there's somewhere else you'd like to see them reported that's
more convenient for you, let me know and I'll see what's possible...)
A frequent look at GH actions would be sufficient. I simply forgot it in
this case.
--
Regards,
Christian
