Project

General

Profile

Bug #11840

Error with "make check" on Cygwin

Added by duerst (Martin Dürst) about 3 years ago. Updated about 3 years ago.

Status:
Open
Priority:
Normal
Target version:
-
ruby -v:
ruby 2.3.0dev (2015-12-17 trunk 53170) [x86_64-cygwin]
[ruby-core:72358]

Description

Encouraged by Hiroshi Shibata's talk at Ruby Kaigi 2015, I tried "make check" on my usual cygwin compilation. If I understand the output below correctly, there was only one error in 1010 tests. If we can fix that error (or exclude the test if it doesn't make sense on cygwin or on Windows in general), then cygwin would pass the tests.

generating prelude.c
prelude.c unchanged
make[2]: 'rubyw.exe' is up to date.
make[2]: Leaving directory '/cygdrive/c/Data/ruby-public'
make[1]: Leaving directory '/cygdrive/c/Data/ruby-public'

test succeeded
#254 test_fork.rb:       F
     begin
       r, w = IO.pipe
       if pid1 = fork
         w.close
         r.read(1)
         Process.kill("USR1", pid1)
         _, s = Process.wait2(pid1)
         s.success? ? :ok : :ng
       else
         r.close
         if pid2 = fork
           trap("USR1") { Time.now.to_s; Process.kill("USR2", pid2) }
           w.close
           Process.wait2(pid2)
         else
           w.close
           sleep 0.2
         end
         exit true
       end
     rescue NotImplementedError
       :ok
     end
  #=> "ng" (expected "ok")  [ruby-core:28924]
stderr output is not empty
   bootstraptest.tmp.rb:13:in `kill': No such process (Errno::ESRCH)
           from bootstraptest.tmp.rb:13:in `block in <main>'
           from bootstraptest.tmp.rb:15:in `wait2'
           from bootstraptest.tmp.rb:15:in `<main>'
test_fork.rb            FAIL 1/5
FAIL 1/1010 tests failed
uncommon.mk:581: recipe for target 'yes-btest-ruby' failed
make: *** [yes-btest-ruby] Error 1

History

Updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) about 3 years ago

  • Description updated (diff)

Possibly, sleep 0.2 is too short?

...and, I'm sorry that it's the first step of the tests.

Updated by duerst (Martin Dürst) about 3 years ago

Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

Possibly, sleep 0.2 is too short?

I tried with 'sleep 1' first, and then with 'sleep 100', but no change.

Also available in: Atom PDF