Tarantool development patches archive
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
To: Sergey Bronnikov <sergeyb@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] test: harden skipcond for libc in LuaJIT-tests
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:15:40 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z2Vf7LQ6SYHPmYYL@root> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2730f6cc-ed1e-415b-9871-e1ac10dcd9c3@tarantool.org>

Hi, Sergey!
Thanks for the review!
See my answers below.

On 20.12.24, Sergey Bronnikov wrote:
> Hello, Sergey,
> 
> thanks for the patch! See comments below.
> 
> 
> On 19.12.2024 12:30, Sergey Kaplun wrote:
> > The `strtod parsing` subtest in the <lib/base/tonumber_scan.lua> checks
> > the results yielded by the `strtod()` via FFI call. In glibc versions
> > before 2.28 it returns an incorrect result (NaN instead of inf) for
> > "0x3p1023" [1]. This patch hardens the skipcond for this test for a
> > smaller version of the libc installed.
> >
> > [1]:https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23279
> > ---
> >
> > Branch:https://github.com/tarantool/luajit/tree/skaplun/gh-noticket-fix-glibc-versions
> >
> > The CI failure for libc 2.23 (ubuntu 16):
> > https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/actions/runs/12376159316/job/34542626889?pr=10949#step:5:13916
> Ubuntu 16.04 EOL and EOS are reached [1]
> > The CI failure for libc 2.24 (debian 9):
> > https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/actions/runs/12376159307/job/34542633454?pr=10949#step:5:13859
> Debian 9 EOL is reached 4 years ago [2]
> > The CI failure for libc 2.27 (ubuntu 18):
> > https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/actions/runs/12376159278/job/34542625496?pr=10949#step:5:11743
> > The CI pass for libc 2.31 (ubuntu 20):
> > https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/actions/runs/12376159289/job/34542630993?pr=10949
> Ubuntu 20.04 support ends in 3 months and 2 week [1].

Yes, unfortunately we should keep (AFAICS) these runners to check the
installations for our customers.

> 
> 
> >
> >   test/LuaJIT-tests/lib/base/tonumber_scan.lua | 8 +++++---
> >   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/test/LuaJIT-tests/lib/base/tonumber_scan.lua b/test/LuaJIT-tests/lib/base/tonumber_scan.lua
> > index ac7d68a4..800c57b0 100644
> > --- a/test/LuaJIT-tests/lib/base/tonumber_scan.lua
> > +++ b/test/LuaJIT-tests/lib/base/tonumber_scan.lua
> > @@ -186,9 +186,11 @@ do --- tonumber parsing
> >     test_conv(tonumber)
> >   end
> >   
> > --- Skip for the old libc version with the bug in the `strtod()`.
> > --- See alsohttps://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16151.
> > -do --- strtod parsing -libc<2.19
> > +-- Skip for the old libc version with the bugs in the `strtod()`.
> > +-- Affected versions:
> > +-- * <2.19:https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16151.
> > +-- * <2.28:https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23279.
> 
> I propose to skip strtod test when Glibc is older than say 2.30 [3] and 
> avoid testing
> 
> with ancient Glibc versions because Glibc implementation is buggy [4] and
> 
> a there are lot of bugs in old and more or less new versions:
> 
> v2.41 [5], v2.22 [6], v2.27 [7], v2.15 [8], v2.33 [9] etc [10].
> 
> 
> I don't think we should waste our time with issues like this.
> 
> 
> 1. https://endoflife.date/ubuntu
> 
> 2. https://endoflife.date/debian
> 
> 3. https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release
> 
> 4. 
> https://github.com/tarantool/luajit/blob/cd5ab5da9b56bf560407554c0377cfa8567d4430/src/lj_strscan.c#L20-L27
> 
> 5. https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30220
> 
> 6. https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19380
> 
> 7. https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15744
> 
> 8. https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14049
> 
> 9. https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26137
> 
> 10. 
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=__all__&content=strtod&no_redirect=1&order=bug_id%20DESC&product=glibc&query_format=specific

Yes, I agree that this should be the last red line for us. If the test
will fail again due to glibc, it will be easier just to drop it. For
now, I see no failures for versions 2.31 -- 2.40, and find no bugs
related to our tests that affected versions 2.28 -- 2.30, so let's skip
it for versions less than 2.28 for now.

> 
> > +do --- strtod parsing -libc<2.28
> >     test_conv(function(s)
> >       local d = ffi.C.strtod(s, e)
> >       return (e[0][0] == 0 and #s ~= 0) and d or nil

-- 
Best regards,
Sergey Kaplun

  reply	other threads:[~2024-12-20 12:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-12-19  9:30 Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches
2024-12-20 10:59 ` Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches
2024-12-20 12:15   ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches [this message]
2024-12-20 12:21     ` Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Z2Vf7LQ6SYHPmYYL@root \
    --to=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \
    --cc=sergeyb@tarantool.org \
    --cc=skaplun@tarantool.org \
    --subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] test: harden skipcond for libc in LuaJIT-tests' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox