This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: Re: more new test failures on Darwin
- From: "François-Xavier Coudert" <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
- To: "Jack Howarth" <howarth at bromo dot msbb dot uc dot edu>
- Cc: Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:13:27 +0200
- Subject: Re: Re: more new test failures on Darwin
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=PolFgRoKy2HMwBYvR2Faln4JDN4jiyklr/cXuR0zOfDI9VFbLDI/8W6eCO6ISNwjT63F3K1NESzbCedAxQ/RFf0uyTHU0xSjo+Vr4tw72l48xTJ2B8yTHH3CE+c47c3/hpvcsvuL1nTNVFDr8YvA6N1y45Dd+9SQ1VtgjOgkwZI=
- References: <20060801121741.71F917000F@bromo.msbb.uc.edu>
...so it looks like the same libraries are used. Could someone manually compile the chmod_1.f90
test under Linux and verify that it can be run with 'sudo ./chmod_1.exe'?
chmod creates a file with OPEN and then tries to see if it can access
it. I suspect that using a sudo changes the effective UID but not the
real UID, and one of the tests somehow fails. Can you see which abort
call is trigered?
FX