New test failures (out of the blue?)

[Reece Dunn]

2009/3/4 Paul Vriens <paul.vriens.wine at gmail.com>:
> Reece Dunn wrote:
>> 2009/3/4 Paul Vriens <paul.vriens.wine at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> We suddenly have a new test failure on NT4 and above for
>>> advapi32:security :
>>>
>>> security.c:1202: Test failed: GetTokenInformation failed with error 998
>>
>> 998 = ERROR_NOACCESS -- "Invalid access to memory location."
>>...
>> That thread seems to suggest that this is an alignment issue -- the
>> GetTokenInformation wants the buffer to be aligned properly. Corinna
>> Vinschen suggests using
>>
>>    PTOKEN_GROUPS groups = (PTOKEN_GROUPS) alloca (size);
>>
>> as alloca aligns correctly in cygwin's case.
>>
>> The buffer used in the test (line 1199) is allocated on the stack as a
>> standard array and is thus not guaranteed to have the correct
>> alignment.
>
> But why suddenly? I hate it when something like that happens.

My guess is that it was by luck or chance that was causing the buffer
to be correctly aligned on the stack. Compiler changes? Build option
changes? Wind changing direction? Who knows.

>>> And now also the rpcrt4:server test on W2K3 crashes (which it didn't
>>> before)
>>> although that crash is not shown on test.winehq.org (child process
>>> crashing?) but you will see 13 failures for this test (0 before).
>>>
>>> I haven't found the variable yet. I'm running VMware but I also see the
>>> advapi32 failure on a real box. My VMware image for W2K3 hasn't been
>>> updated
>>> since last week.
>>
>> No idea for this one. Have you done a bisect?
>>
> Yep, as I also had the failure when crosscompiling myself I went back to
> yesterdays build which was OK (see test.winehq.org), to no avail (it also
> fails).
>
> The only thing I can think of is changes to my Fedora 10 (there were some
> updates yesterday) build. Doesn't explains the failure for that native box
> though (maybe it was the first run ever for that box, dunno).

Looking at those tests, Ge van Geldorp fixed a crash in those tests
that may indeed have been hiding the failures we are seeing now with
the latest tests. Also, the tests appear to be crashing (which may
have been hiding the existing failure) intermittently on different
runs, so it succeeding yesterday could be a red herring.

- Reece