After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 359577 - 'make check' fails one test
'make check' fails one test
Status: RESOLVED NOTGNOME
Product: GStreamer
Classification: Platform
Component: gstreamer (core)
0.10.9
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: NONE
Assigned To: GStreamer Maintainers
GStreamer Maintainers
Depends on: 348114
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-10-04 12:50 UTC by Joseph Sacco
Modified: 2006-10-05 09:52 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.15/2.16


Description Joseph Sacco 2006-10-04 12:50:23 UTC 
Running suite(s): data protocol
75%: Checks: 4, Failures: 1, Errors: 0
libs/gdp.c:140:F:general:test_buffer: GST_BUFFER_IN_CAPS flag should have been copied !
FAIL: libs/gdp


-Joseph
Comment 1 Joseph Sacco 2006-10-04 13:46:56 UTC 
The problem persists in 0.10.10

Running suite(s): data protocol
80%: Checks: 5, Failures: 1, Errors: 0 libs/gdp.c:150:F:general:test_buffer: GST_BUFFER_IN_CAPS flag should have been copied ! FAIL: libs/gdp 


-Joseph
Comment 2 Tim-Philipp Müller 2006-10-04 14:27:35 UTC 
IIRC last time I saw this it was a compiler bug on PPC. Are you running this on PPC as well? What's the gcc/compiler version you're using?
Comment 3 Joseph Sacco 2006-10-04 15:26:37 UTC 
Tim,

I believe you are correct. I too vaguely remember this to be a PPC compiler bug. Hmmm...  Maybe it was an optimization level bug?

I have built gstreamer using both gcc-3.4.4 and gcc-4.0.2. I see the same bug in both cases.

I will poke at this a bit more.


-Joseph
Comment 4 Joseph Sacco 2006-10-04 16:00:35 UTC 
Tim,

Sorry for wasting your time. It was an optimization bug.  When I shut off optimization, the problem goes away

   Running suite(s): data protocol
   100%: Checks: 5, Failures: 0, Errors: 0
   PASS: libs/gdp


-Joseph
Comment 5 Joseph Sacco 2006-10-04 16:56:20 UTC 
For what it's worth... Reducing the optimization level to '-O1' is good enough.

-Joseph
Comment 6 Tim-Philipp Müller 2006-10-05 09:52:12 UTC 
Also see bug #348114