libcdio-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Libcdio-devel] broken make check and two simple fixes


From: Rocky Bernstein
Subject: Re: [Libcdio-devel] broken make check and two simple fixes
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 07:48:39 -0400

The SEGV in test-driver of course has nothing to do with your patches. The
behavior of logging now respects cdio_loglevel_default more pervasively so
the behavior changed. I think for the better here. So that test was wrong.

Commit 311455eefaebcf483a75e4134511888ec1cfd55a fixes this along wiith your
automake patch applied. I had intended to make these two separate commits,
but that slipped by.

Your other patch to remove the executable bit also has been applied.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Adrian Reber <address@hidden> wrote:

> I got following Fedora bug report:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247351
>
> which points out that there are files with the executable bit set,
> which do not really need it. So I have a patch to remove some of the
> unneeded executable bits:
>
>
> https://lisas.de/git/?p=libcdio.git/git;a=commit;h=a3435e6f74e01e7c02e774101d68f6c246a2fb7a
>
> and another change which silences an automake warning:
>
>
> https://lisas.de/git/?p=libcdio.git/git;a=commit;h=d83906e0319b99b9056fdfc9f549c045b3df3b7b
>
>
> Checking if my changes break anything I found out that
> the commit 8fcd4ce909f4f04e77bee78f573a241d0e9f2c34 breaks make check.
>
> commit 8fcd4ce909f4f04e77bee78f573a241d0e9f2c34
> Author: R. Bernstein <address@hidden>
> Date:   Tue May 26 08:40:40 2015 -0400
>
>     Recursion checking in cdio_logv() can't use cdio_assert_not_reached()
>     which causes more recursion. To reduce the possibility concurrent
>     log writes, we'll eliminate those that are ignored earlier.
>     sr #108751:
>
> After that commit it fails with:
>
> ../../test-driver: line 107: 24504 Segmentation fault      (core dumped)
> "$@" > $log_file 2>&1
> FAIL: logger
>
>
>                 Adrian
>
>


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]